In article , Lena wrote:
Fred Atkinson wrote:
>> Lena wrote:
>>> I think an amendment to the Telemarketing Laws is in order, to
>>> prohibit any telemarketer, calling on behalf of any charity or
>>> political organization, from calling any number more than once a year.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Lena, when you limit those people
> to 'one call per year', wouldn't that be like saying spammers and
> scammers and phishermen should be limited to one spam, scam or phish > per year?
No one here has ever said spammers, scammers and phishers should be free to do what they do. All we've done is point out the futility in the approaches suggested here.
Are you trying to dictate what people can talk about on their phone? > PAT]
No, she and we are trying to dictate what people can talk about on OUR phones. Big difference. My paying for a phone does not give someone else license to unlimited use of it for THEIR purposes.
John Meissen snipped-for-privacy@aracnet.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That would also be true regarding _your_ computer accounts would it not? But finding the _legitimate, bonadide_ guilty party and chopping off his fingers would not be so futile, would it? But I have many readers here who consider me to be an imbicile and unable to correctly idenfity spammers; apparently they do not know how to geographically locate and match up IP numbers, and no, you do _NOT_ rely upon what the "From:" has to say; you begin much further up in the envelope. Start with the "from " at the very top and carefully examine the first two or three lines as well as paying close attention to the path lines showing how the message got to you. Some of that stuff up there is much harder (but not impossible!) to forge. Now, 'tis true that dial-up IPs tend to be quite dynamic and almost useless, but really serious spammers have a solid line all the time don't they? Please go look at
formatting link
see an example of something I am working on in cooperation with the geobytes.com database. Testing the accuracy of my 'welcome to visitors' line has thus far shown a high degree of positive results. Just go look at those lines on that page. I don't care if you bother to listen to the audio or read the AP newswire. Some of you are probably too smart to bother with that anyway. If the 'welcome to visitors from' line produces really gross inaccuracies in your instance, I would like to know about it. In a day or three, I am going to present here an HTML 'form' in which you can cut and paste the top half dozen or so lines from your favorite spam. I hope you will give it an honest review, and report your results to the Tin Hat imbicile. PAT]