Want extra traffic to your website for free?

Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com wrote:
> Viper wrote:
>> Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> GreyWyvern wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:44:28 -0400, Charles Sweeney
>>>>> <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> GreyWyvern wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, sending rapists and paedophiles to prison hasn't stopped
>>>>>>> new ones from appearing. I guess we should stop trying to put
>>>>>>> *them* away too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because there's not enough resources to deal with them
>>>>>> more effectively. No-one said anything about clearing up such
>>>>>> offences, but putting more wasted resources to them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What you consider unimportant enough to ignore may not be so for
>>>>> others. It may be callous to examine the money angle, but what
>>>>> goes around comes around. The money lost to bandwidth stolen by
>>>>> spam and unproductive time spent by the working citizen to sift
>>>>> through it is valuable business &currency; lost which will not
>>>>> enter the policing and judicial systems via taxation, and
>>>>> therefore lessens its effectiveness against *all* forms of crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Grey
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Grey,
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely.
>>>>
>>>> I get > 1K spams a week. Fortunately, my anti-spam software
>>>> (combination of several things) filters out > 96% of it, with no
>>>> known false positives. So on a typical day I have about 5-6 spams
>>>> to look through.
>>>
>>> But imagine the ONE false positive is that vital job / contract /
>>> something....
>>
>>
>> If they are supporting a spam friendly ISP forget them.
>
> Right, a normal business know who is spam friendly and who isn't how ?
> & its not only spam friendly ISP's who get occasionally black listed.
> Your view on the world seems to be painfully digital. (GOOD / PURE
> EVIL)

Only ISP's/Host's that are allowing spam get blocked.
All lists except a very few remove the block when the spam stops. If an
upstream is allowing spam and gets the IPs they own but lease to a smaller
ISP/Host blocked then the smaller ISP is spam friendly because its paying
the larger one for access.

--
Viper
Are you seeking revenge?
http://www.seekingrevenge.com
http://www.coinsandcurrency.info/

Viper wrote

<bull>

I repeat:

Show me terms from ANY ISP/host that says they allow spam.

Just one will do.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Viper wrote
>
> <bull>
>
> I repeat:
>
> Show me terms from ANY ISP/host that says they allow spam.
>
> Just one will do.

Just because the TERMS say they dont doesnt mean the policy of the company
doesnt allow it. Check the links I posted. Come on Chuckie.

--
Viper
Are you seeking revenge?
http://www.seekingrevenge.com
http://www.coinsandcurrency.info/

Viper wrote

> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>> Show me terms from ANY ISP/host that says they allow spam.
>>
>> Just one will do.
>
> Just because the TERMS say they dont doesnt mean the policy of the
> company doesnt allow it. Check the links I posted. Come on Chuckie.

From the Savvis story you cited:

"it's much less common to find ISPs aiding and abetting spammers as is
suggested in the Savvis memos"

So said John Levine of the Internet Research Task Force's Anti-Spam
Research Group. Levine also runs an anti-spam service called AbuseNet.

I agree with him. Virtually all ISPs/hosts do NOT allow spam, either in
their terms, policy or practice.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Viper wrote
>
>
>>Charles Sweeney wrote:
>>
>>>Show me terms from ANY ISP/host that says they allow spam.
>>>
>>>Just one will do.
>>
>>Just because the TERMS say they dont doesnt mean the policy of the
>>company doesnt allow it. Check the links I posted. Come on Chuckie.
>
>
> From the Savvis story you cited:
>
> "it's much less common to find ISPs aiding and abetting spammers as is
> suggested in the Savvis memos"
>
> So said John Levine of the Internet Research Task Force's Anti-Spam
> Research Group. Levine also runs an anti-spam service called AbuseNet.
>
> I agree with him. Virtually all ISPs/hosts do NOT allow spam, either in
> their terms, policy or practice.

What about google? (Gmail) the holier than thou company ? I had an email
blocked from my gmail account due to spamcop (or something) now, please
tell me that google is a spam friendly company ?

Its funny, at the moment you two are actually arguing the opposite ends!
I mean, my point is that spam filters creates a problem with false
positives and now Charles is jumping in to agree that some good hosts
may be black listed! (in effect).

LOL