Jim Watt wrote:

Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has failed.
Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is actively
trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws. No doubt
Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....

From: "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com>

|
| Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has failed.
| Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is actively
| trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws. No doubt
| Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....

Pure FUD !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Well, yes! But unfortunately recent history has taught us that that is
the only thing the US government has to offer to the world. On topic, I
wouldn't trust a Microsoft executive VP to push my grand-daughter's push
chair, nor any member of RIAA, Warner Bros, etc, etc.

They are ALL attempting to dictate to YOU what they consider computer
security is.... unfortunately, they seem to be hell bent on making it
safe from you - the computer owner and user, whilst still losing sight
of the fact that the 'bad guys' are persistently, and successfully
targeting in the main the third class offerings of the Microsoft
Corporation.

I don't do hacking, I study this from interest, but I have had for the
last few months a quiet personal bet that within 18 months a major
international player (company-wise) will go bust, thanks to their total
reliance on good-ol' M$ software.

I look forward to being proved wrong! (The local history of my employer
seems to indicate otherwise )

David H. Lipman wrote:

David H. Lipman wrote:

Try expanding on your comment. Which part, in you belief, is FUD?

Imhotep

Steve Welsh wrote:

Even more funny is the fact that their plans are wide out in the open and
yet you have people say that's "FUD"...if people read more, you would not
have to explains things over, and over, and over again...

From: "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com>

| David H. Lipman wrote:
|
|>> Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is actively
|>> trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws. No doubt
|>> Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....
|
| Imhotep

"No doubt Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS...."

I doubt it.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

David H. Lipman wrote:

Ah, OK, let's start by reviewing the data with pure logic. Let's start with
some data that I think we can both agree with.

1) Microsoft only does things when those things befit Microsoft. In other
words think about this. Microsoft's users have been complaining about SPAM
for years. Yet what software changes or additions has Microsoft put into
their software to help this? Damn, even Linux/BSD users have email clients
with built in SpamAssassin client plugin modules (reference KDE's KMail).
Yet, even when Microsoft's users have been jumping up and down in
frustration, they go out and try to convince the NV gov/people that they
SHOULD NOT pass a law that clearly protects computer users. Ask yourself
why.

2) CAN-SPAM is a failure. Pure and simple. So why the lie to the NV
gov/people? Let's look at this simply. Anytime someone lies to you when
they are trying to sell something to you, watch out.

3) Calling SPAMMERS "email marketers' is the same old technique of sugar
coating an issue. Again, why not just call it what it is?

As with anything in life, when investigating someone look for the motive.
Understanding someone's motive will reveal the truth.

Now, you can disagree with me as to Microsoft's motive for such and
irresponsible stance on SPAM if you want. However, I think the statement
about Microsoft benefiting for SPAMING companies an honest, and high
probable, statement.

If you think their motive is something else, please say what you think it
is. I will honestly entertain the idea.

Imhotep

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:01:17 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3384447a28,00.html

"Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group, headed by Ryan Hamlin,
is celebrating a blow against spam in the US after securing a $US7
million settlement from former spammer Scott Richter, who Mr Hamlin
describes as the third largest spammer in the US, responsible for
sending out more than 20 billion spam messages in just one year."

"However, he says the New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic
Messages Bill is "too broad" and could impinge on "the amazing vehicle
of e-mail marketing". "

"Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that
businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases
that they had already compiled to send out e-mail."

"He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would
be able to e-mail information about new products and services to
customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other
services they had bought from the company in the past."

"Microsoft is keen to stamp out spam, but Mr Hamlin is concerned the
bill as it stands could prevent businesses from sending out e-mails to
people who had been their customers."

"He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
relationship with them."

Hmmmm. "...the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing"?

"...ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to people even if they
are unsure if they have a pre-existing business relationship with
them"?

If it looks like Spam, it sounds like Spam and it tastes like Spam, it
probably is Spam. :-(

Dazz

From: "Dazz" <cashdj@hotmail.com>

|
| Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
| head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us.
|
| http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3384447a28,00.html
|
| "Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group, headed by Ryan Hamlin,
| is celebrating a blow against spam in the US after securing a $US7
| million settlement from former spammer Scott Richter, who Mr Hamlin
| describes as the third largest spammer in the US, responsible for
| sending out more than 20 billion spam messages in just one year."
|
| "However, he says the New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic
| Messages Bill is "too broad" and could impinge on "the amazing vehicle
| of e-mail marketing". "
|
| "Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that
| businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases
| that they had already compiled to send out e-mail."
|
| "He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would
| be able to e-mail information about new products and services to
| customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other
| services they had bought from the company in the past."
|
| "Microsoft is keen to stamp out spam, but Mr Hamlin is concerned the
| bill as it stands could prevent businesses from sending out e-mails to
| people who had been their customers."
|
| "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
| people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
| relationship with them."
|
| Hmmmm. "...the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing"?
|
| "...ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to people even if they
| are unsure if they have a pre-existing business relationship with
| them"?
|
| If it looks like Spam, it sounds like Spam and it tastes like Spam, it
| probably is Spam. :-(
|
| Dazz

Have you actually read the "New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill" ?

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Dazz Quoted:
Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us
..
<SNIP>
As Dazz Says, "Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and
Safety Group head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us." And here goes Mr Hamlin:

"So let's go into the definition, though, of spam. And like I said,
there's no real universal definition. Spam has been described -- and
this is one that's fairly common -- unsolicited commercial e-mail,
unsolicited meaning I didn't subscribe to get this, it's commercial,
it's usually trying to sell you something, and that's the definition
that's pretty common and you see that quite a bit.

Then people came around and said, you know, it's actually more than
that though; it's bulk. It's not just one or two mails, it's when,
man, millions of mail are sent out, so let's standardize on
unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail; that's a good definition."

"There are two others. It's unwanted e-mail. This is a definition --
and I actually do like this one because this really takes the
perspective of a consumer and it says, you know what, it's just
anything that shows up in my inbox I don't want. That's really the
definition that we're really looking for."

Silicon Valley Speaker Series
Remarks by Ryan Hamlin, general manager of the Anti-Spam Technology
& Strategy Group
Microsoft's Anti-Spam Initiative
Thursday, May 29, 2003

You can read the whole caboodle at:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/e...05-29spam.mspx

So what, precisely, does Microsoft want? Personally, I'm not waiting
around for Mr Gates to solve this or any other problem. Let him go
after the spammers if he wants but it's a bit like rats - there's
more of them than there are people!


Charlie.


--
Broadcasting to the environs
www.radiowymsey.org

David H. Lipman wrote:

online link to the bill? I have been looking for the actual wording to
read.

Winged

From: "Winged" <Winged@nofollow.com>

| David H. Lipman wrote:
|
| online link to the bill? I have been looking for the actual wording to
| read.
|
| Winged

Nope. I don't.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:26:37 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

<snipped>

No, although I have been looking for it.

A discussion paper can be found at
http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/...ion/index.html.

Regardless of whether or not I have read it, it doesn't lessen the
comments made by the head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety
Group, Ryan Hamlin, particularly "the amazing vehicle of e-mail
marketing" or "... ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
relationship with them."

The important question is: Why would Microsoft care if this bill is
passed in New Zealand or not?

It was obviously important enough for Ryan Hamlin to fly to New
Zealand to try to convince the New Zealand Government to change their
minds.

Well they wouldn't ... unless of course, they could somehow profit
from it.

I wonder how much money Microsoft's "new technology"
(http://www.newstarget.com/001072.html) is going to cost the user?

Here's some more interesting links:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3201084a28,00.html
http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.ph...43833&eid=-302
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...256FB5002EA516
http://www.egov.vic.gov.au/Internati...wzeal.htm#spam

Dazz

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:04:18 +0200, Jim Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way>
wrote:

Well, neither you or I were there, so we can only go on what was
quoted.

However, from numerous other articles that I have read, including
articles from Microsoft's own website, Hamlin's comments tie in with
other comments he has made in the past - particularly in relation to
spam and "opting out" as opposed to "opting in".

And that is what this bill actually caters for - opting in as opposed
to opting out which is what Microsoft want everyone to do. The
proposed NZ Bill caters for that.

If you download a trial or ful version of software, in quite a number
of cases you end up providing an email address. Most reputable sites
give you the option of being unable to untick a box in reference to
them sending you emails with their latest product information.

In my opinion, that's how it should work.

Agreed.

However, just as I don't want to read an email about improving my sex
life, I also don't want emails containing propaganda about Microsoft's
latest version of Office or a bloated Operating System.

I don't know why Microsoft believe that they have the right to dictate
to me (or a democratically elected Government for that matter) about
what *they* think is best for me.

I suspect Billy boy wouldn't be too impressed if I rang him up at home
telling him how wonderfully fantastic "brand X" is. Likewise,
Microsoft and any other commercial company shouldn't have the right to
fill my inbox with their propaganda, unless I specifically sign up for
it.

I suspect that Microsoft have their own reasons for trying to enforce
their ideas on me and the rest of the world - and that comes down to
$$$$.

Many thanks - I've been looking for that. :-)

Dazz

Dazz wrote:
<snip>
....exactly my point.

Imhotep

Dazz wrote:
<snip>
Exactly. Microsoft will only be an advocate of something if that something
is aligned with their business strategy...

When investigating something, always look at the motives. It will always
reveal the truth.

So, I challenge anyone to come up with a reasonable explanation on what you
think Microsoft's motives are (if you do not believe me when I say they are
benefiting from spammers)

Im

Jim Watt wrote:

Jim, you might not mind getting "clean" spam but, there are many people like
me that do not want ANY spam ("clean" or otherwise)...

Yes, "dirty" spam is also unwanted.

Again, maybe you do not mind "clean" spam, but I do not. I do not care if it
is Red Hat. For me spam is spam. I do not want any.


Again, the NZ bill makes sense. It gives the power to the recipient not the
company. It will work for people like you who do not mind "clean" spam as
you can sign up for it. It will work for people like me who do not want any
spam ("clean" or otherwise)

Im

Jim Watt wrote:

Allowing people to choose if they want spam or not is truly allowing for the
"all".

I also post my email address on the domains I own/responsible for. I am NOT
asking for SPAM!!! The email address listing on a whois table is for
TECHNICAL contacts and NOT for spammers. Why can you not get this through
your head???

You said you like receiving spam, I was just helping you....

...and ones that help people are good laws. So, what is your point? That anti
spam laws that place the power in the individuals hands are bad? I think
people are responsible enough to handle that responsibility...

Paranoia????

I am not attacking you for your views, I only attack you when you act like a
dickhead...


SUMMARY:
We need anti spam laws that give the recipients the power to choose if they
want spam and NOT the marketing companies....Doing this will cut down on
computer resources and recipient frustrations. The real problem here is
that marketing companies have a lot of money and are worried that their
revenue will be hurt...

Imhotep

Jim Watt wrote:

I do not see any possibly of hindrance with respect to companies. Companies
could easily maintain a web frontend for all the people who wish to sign up
for their marketing service. Writing and maintaining such a service is
trivial.

True, ISP do not make great Cops and some of them do not make great ISP
either.

Let's break down the sources of spam:

1) Windows pcs that have some type of spyware
2) Free email services
3) Companies (either directly from their resources or through a second party
marketing company)

#1 -- Not much you can do here. MS Vista promises to help things but at a
large cost. Banning Windows is a thought. Also, some of these machines are
hijacked to send out spam (acting as a third party to legitimate
companies). These companies would be held liable. So, the NZ law would help
here.

#2 -- Most free email services have some protection. Some limit how much
email you can send per day. Again, any spmammer using this service on
behalf of a legitmate company would be penalize by the NZ law.

#3 -- Would be covered completely by the NZ law.

Clearly an NZ type law would help...


Im

Jim Watt wrote:

No it would not. Please! Have you ever written a PHP app with a MySQL
backend? 500 bucks for the MySQL license. That's it. Please...

Since the company is benefiting from the marketing it should be their
responsibility to maintain such a system. After all their making the money
from spamming me and everyone else. I am sure they can afford it.

Get Real? Jim, get a clue...

Imhotep