Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > spam canned.

Reply
Thread Tools

spam canned.

 
 
Management
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2005
Dazz Quoted:
Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us
..
<SNIP>
> "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."
>


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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Winged
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2005
David H. Lipman wrote:

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

No I had asked for a link to bill but never found it. Do you have an
online link to the bill? I have been looking for the actual wording to
read.

Winged
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David H. Lipman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2005
From: "Winged" <(E-Mail Removed)>

| David H. Lipman wrote:
|
>> Have you actually read the "New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic Messages
>> Bill" ?
>>

| No I had asked for a link to bill but never found it. Do you have an
| 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dazz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:26:37 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

<snipped>

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


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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Watt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:55:16 +1000, Dazz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>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."


Firstly there is the question of what he actually said, rather than
what he is reported as having said.

Secondly, I do not object to receiving unsolicited commercial
emails at my business email address providing they are genuine
companies offering real products and services. When I publish
an email address to contact the company its fair enough and
part of doing business. There is an imolied invitation to use
that address by it being published.

What needs to stop is the abuse of email by spammers, rather
than legitimate company use, if one took away the 419, biggerdick
visit our pornsite etc junklmail life would be quite quite bearable.

I would not object to getting the occasional message from a
Linux vendor, as Redhat did offering me their packages.
Indeed hearing about new products and services is positive
and its better than getting stuff in the post as less trees die
in the process and the virtual wastebin feeds no tip.

The link you want for the actual bill is

http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gp...s/20052811.txt
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dazz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:04:18 +0200, Jim Watt <(E-Mail Removed)_way>
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:55:16 +1000, Dazz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>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."

>
>Firstly there is the question of what he actually said, rather than
>what he is reported as having said.


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".

>Secondly, I do not object to receiving unsolicited commercial
>emails at my business email address providing they are genuine
>companies offering real products and services. When I publish
>an email address to contact the company its fair enough and
>part of doing business. There is an imolied invitation to use
>that address by it being published.


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.

>What needs to stop is the abuse of email by spammers, rather
>than legitimate company use, if one took away the 419, biggerdick
>visit our pornsite etc junklmail life would be quite quite bearable.


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
$$$$.

>I would not object to getting the occasional message from a
>Linux vendor, as Redhat did offering me their packages.
>Indeed hearing about new products and services is positive
>and its better than getting stuff in the post as less trees die
>in the process and the virtual wastebin feeds no tip.
>
>The link you want for the actual bill is
>
>http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gp...s/20052811.txt


Many thanks - I've been looking for that.

Dazz

 
Reply With Quote
 
Imhotep
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
Dazz wrote:
<snip>
> 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


....exactly my point.

Imhotep
 
Reply With Quote
 
Imhotep
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
Dazz wrote:
<snip>
> Well they wouldn't ... unless of course, they could somehow profit
> from it.
>


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

> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Imhotep
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
Jim Watt wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:55:16 +1000, Dazz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>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."

>
> Firstly there is the question of what he actually said, rather than
> what he is reported as having said.
>
> Secondly, I do not object to receiving unsolicited commercial
> emails at my business email address providing they are genuine
> companies offering real products and services. When I publish
> an email address to contact the company its fair enough and
> part of doing business. There is an imolied invitation to use
> that address by it being published.


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

> What needs to stop is the abuse of email by spammers, rather
> than legitimate company use, if one took away the 419, biggerdick
> visit our pornsite etc junklmail life would be quite quite bearable.


Yes, "dirty" spam is also unwanted.

> I would not object to getting the occasional message from a
> Linux vendor, as Redhat did offering me their packages.
> Indeed hearing about new products and services is positive
> and its better than getting stuff in the post as less trees die
> in the process and the virtual wastebin feeds no tip.


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.

> The link you want for the actual bill is
>
> http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gp...s/20052811.txt
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com



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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Watt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:39:23 -0400, Imhotep <(E-Mail Removed)>
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)...


But laws have a wide application, and are not just for the few.

If were were limited to only sending messages to people we had
received one from the process could never start. You ignore
my point that companies invited email by publishing their addresses
indeed I publish mine on the Internet and as the whois contact
for domains.

Thats why your pathetic attempts to harass me by malevolently
posting my email address here have no effect.

Laws that are unworkable or against peoples interests are bad
laws.

its also a pity you cannot address the topic, rather than just
attacking me for presenting views.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spam-Spam and more Spam C A Preston Computer Support 2 04-12-2004 07:15 PM



Advertisments