«

CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.
Based
on innovative ideas and sporting an intuitive GUI, it is suited for both
home and business applications.

The author Roberto Della Pasqua says: "Createmotions is the result of four
years of full time development and academic research by a team comprised of
international talent, with the ultimate goal of bringing evolutionary
messaging software methods to the business market, the home use and the
third sector".

CreatemotionsTM is inviting companies, IT groups, academic researchers,
senior coders, low level TCP/IP hackers and pretty much anyone who is
interested to be a part of the beta test. As a reward, one licence for the
final product will be given to all participants.

If interested please check www.createmotions.com.

Thank you

Roberto

Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
> CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.
[etc.]
Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
anti-spamming address munging?

Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>
> Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
> > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.
> [etc.]
> Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
> anti-spamming address munging?

Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
bullet-proof vests.

infobahn <> scribbled the following:
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
>> > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.
>> [etc.]
>> Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
>> anti-spamming address munging?

> Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
> bullet-proof vests.

I guess hypocrisy is not one of those reasons.

--
/-- Joona Palaste () ------------- Finland --------\
\-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
"When a man talks dirty to a woman, that's sexual harassment. When a woman talks
dirty to a man, that's 14.99 per minute + local telephone charges!"
- Ruben Stiller

Joona I Palaste wrote:
>
> infobahn <> scribbled the following:
> > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >> Why do spammers use anti-spamming address munging?
>
> > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
> > bullet-proof vests.
>
> I guess hypocrisy is not one of those reasons.

No, it isn't. Spammers don't do this because they're hypocritical.
They're hypocritical because they do this.

infobahn <> wrote:

> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >
> > Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
> > > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.
> > [etc.]
> > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
> > anti-spamming address munging?
>
> Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
> bullet-proof vests.

Nah. All spammers are immoral, worthless lowlife. Most police officers
are not in the LAPD.

Richard

Richard Bos wrote:
>
> infobahn <> wrote:
>
> > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> > >
> > > Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
> > > > CreatemotionsTM is a high quality family of instant messaging software.
> > > [etc.]
> > > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
> > > anti-spamming address munging?
> >
> > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
> > bullet-proof vests.
>
> Nah.

You appear to disagree...

> All spammers are immoral, worthless lowlife. Most police officers
> are not in the LAPD.

....but your disagreement appears to span not from logic but from a
moral position. I can hardly believe that anyone would need this to
be clarified, but it appears that you do, so I'll clarify. I was
*not* equating spammers with police officers. I was merely showing
that defending yourself against attack is neither incompatible with
being an attacker, nor necessarily hypocritical.

Morally, you're on safer ground. Spamming is of course abhorrent
to all sensible people.

infobahn <> wrote:

> Richard Bos wrote:
> >
> > infobahn <> wrote:
> >
> > > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
> > > > anti-spamming address munging?
> > >
> > > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
> > > bullet-proof vests.
> >
> > Nah.
>
> You appear to disagree...
>
> > All spammers are immoral, worthless lowlife. Most police officers
> > are not in the LAPD.
>
> ...but your disagreement appears to span not from logic but from a
> moral position. I can hardly believe that anyone would need this to
> be clarified, but it appears that you do, so I'll clarify. I was
> *not* equating spammers with police officers. I was merely showing
> that defending yourself against attack is neither incompatible with
> being an attacker, nor necessarily hypocritical.

The police (usually) protect themselves from other people's, often
criminals', attacks. Spammers protect themselves from their own crimes.
The latter _is_ hypocritical, the former is not.

Richard

Richard Bos wrote:
>
> infobahn <> wrote:
>
> > Richard Bos wrote:
> > >
> > > infobahn <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can you say "spam"? I knew you could. Why do spammers use
> > > > > anti-spamming address munging?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps for the same reason that some armed police officers wear
> > > > bullet-proof vests.
> > >
> > > Nah.
> >
> > You appear to disagree...
> >
> > > All spammers are immoral, worthless lowlife. Most police officers
> > > are not in the LAPD.
> >
> > ...but your disagreement appears to span not from logic but from a
> > moral position. I can hardly believe that anyone would need this to
> > be clarified, but it appears that you do, so I'll clarify. I was
> > *not* equating spammers with police officers. I was merely showing
> > that defending yourself against attack is neither incompatible with
> > being an attacker, nor necessarily hypocritical.
>
> The police (usually) protect themselves from other people's, often
> criminals', attacks. Spammers protect themselves from their own crimes.
> The latter _is_ hypocritical, the former is not.

No. Spammers use email munging to protect themselves from other
people's (i.e. other spammers') crimes, not from their own. I
can't believe that even a spammer would be stupid enough to spam
his own address(es). (All right, maybe I /can/ believe that, but
I doubt whether it is true for most of them.) So the analogy,
imperfect though it may be, is still reasonable.

infobahn <> scribbled the following:
> Richard Bos wrote:
>> The police (usually) protect themselves from other people's, often
>> criminals', attacks. Spammers protect themselves from their own crimes.
>> The latter _is_ hypocritical, the former is not.

> No. Spammers use email munging to protect themselves from other
> people's (i.e. other spammers') crimes, not from their own. I
> can't believe that even a spammer would be stupid enough to spam
> his own address(es). (All right, maybe I /can/ believe that, but
> I doubt whether it is true for most of them.) So the analogy,
> imperfect though it may be, is still reasonable.

Police don't attack other police, even if the other police belong to a
different department, or an altogether different police force. However,
as you said yourself, spammers attack other spammers. Therefore Richard
Bos's argument is valid, and the analogy is unreasonable.

--
/-- Joona Palaste () ------------- Finland --------\
\-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
"The large yellow ships hung in the sky in exactly the same way that bricks
don't."
- Douglas Adams