OT: Being bombarded by e-mail trojans

From: Patrick Rigney <patrick_at_evocative.com>
Date: Sat Sep 20 13:36:05 2003

John,

We agree. If you're not in California, please come, so I can vote for you
for Governor.

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org
> [mailto:cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of J.C. Wren
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 11:16 AM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: OT: Being bombarded by e-mail trojans
>
>
> I fail to understand how anyone with half a neuron, or even a
> congresscritter, can think that spammers have rights that need to be
> protected. They operate on the grace of a federally and privately funded
> networks, and never pay the true cost of what spamming costs.
> It's also one
> more clear point why lobby groups should be illegal.
>
> I can't even think of a good example to compare these
> spamming morons to.
> Personally, I think CNN Headline News should run "Executions _at_
> 8", where we
> line up the spammers, walk down the line with a Colt .45, and put a round
> through their face. And you get to enter a lottery for $2 if you
> want to be
> the triggerman. If that doesn't slow them down, it's hard to
> imagine what
> else will.
>
> There's just NO justification for their existence, past,
> present or future.
> And only a crongresscritter could fail to understand that.
>
> --John
>
> On Saturday 20 September 2003 13:44 pm, Patrick Rigney wrote:
>
> [ much snippage ]
>
> >
> > Congress has done an embarrassingly bad job of addressing the spam issue
> > meangingfully so far--pretty much useless, IMO. They need to
> be informed,
> > they need to open their minds and really understand the issues, and they
> > need to understand why what they have done so far isn't
> effective, and that
> > technical solutions alone will not address the problem. And,
> enforcement
> > and prosecution needs to be handled as a criminal matter, with real
> > interest and urgency on the part of law enforcement, not a civil matter
> > that's so potentially burdensome on the complainant that it's
> not worth the
> > effort.
>
> [ more snippage ]
>
>
Received on Sat Sep 20 2003 - 13:36:05 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:36:26 BST