|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author:
Date: Mar 31, 2007 23:57
On 2007-04-01, Captain Bob tania.servebbs.org> wrote:>
> What in hell are you babbling about? Outed? For what? By whome? When?
> You must be an idiot spammer, no one else could be that stupid.
The "people" (FSVOP) you are replying to are Brad Jesness and Moris
Chiprut. Please don't feed the trolling kooks.
--
"Find spammers. Bash skulls."
- Mission Statement of the Anti-Spam Taskforce
"If it spams, clobber it until it stops spamming."
- The Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: WindsorFoxWindsorFox
Date: Mar 31, 2007 22:36
Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
>> You're on the Fed's Do Not Call List - How's that working for ya?
>
> It's working great, thanks for asking. Went from a few calls
> per evening to none for several months at a time. The one scofflaw
> that called twice, a Sacramento boiler room called The Lending
> Tree, stopped when I reported them on the FTC's site.
>
> I recommend the FTC's Do Not Call list to US residents
> uninterested in sales calls at home.
>
>
> Cameron
>
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: NickNick
Date: Mar 31, 2007 22:21
Spammed by fax?
Is your fax machine being loaded up with useless offers and unwanted advertising?
Tired of someone using your paper & ink for their own purposes?
You're on the Fed's Do Not Call List - How's that working for ya?
STRIKE BACK !!! - Make it cost them for a change!
Follow the link - No advertising, popups or stuff
http://www.deltadj.com
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Shmuel (Seymour J.) MetzShmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Date: Mar 31, 2007 21:29
>Is it actually stated in S 877 that S 877 prohibits recovery of
>statutory or punitive damages from a successful suit for conversion,
>trespass, wire fraud, etc?
No. However, I'm not familiar with any generic law on theft or
trespass that has statutory damages and that permits filing in small
claims court. So AFAIK the only effective redress was in the laws that
were nullified.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
< http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spamtrap@ library.lspace.org
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Captain BobCaptain Bob
Date: Mar 31, 2007 21:09
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:15:54 +0100
Mike Purcell bran71.com> wrote:
> A SPEWS PUPPET trolling as 'Captain Bob' wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:20:01 +0200 (CEST) Nomen Nescio
>> dizum.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Captain Bob" (Bob Richards)
Handle is BR9 BTW
>>
> What's your real name and when did you tell us (tinu) about it?
That *is* my real name you idiot, and it's on every one of my posts
along with my real email address!
> IIRC, you were outed by the poster you are raging about.
What in hell are you babbling about? Outed? For what? By whome? When?
You must be an idiot spammer, no one else could be that stupid.
Bob
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bill SilversteinBill Silverstein
Date: Mar 31, 2007 20:47
On 31 Mar 2007 18:51:06 -0700, grendal wrote:
>On Mar 30, 9:14 am, Bill Silverstein sorehands.com>
>wrote:>> On 30 Mar 2007 07:26:20 -0700, grendal wrote:
>>
>>>> Incorrect, if it ever gets past the jurisdiction issue. If it gets back
>>>> to the trial court, then the defendants can file a combined 12(b)(2),
>>>> 12(b)(6), and 12(c). if you don't understand why, then and Lookup
>>>> collateral estoppel.
>>
>> The Tort issue is defamation and intentional interference by those false
>> statements. If the statements are ruled true, then those torts go out
>> the window.
>
>Only if you can roll back the clock.
If/When it returns from the appeals court.
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Terry AustinTerry Austin
Date: Mar 31, 2007 20:36
"Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." cox.net> wrote in
news:%%qDPh.5432$EJ6.4806@newsfe24.lga:
> Terry Austin wrote:
>
>> Aren't relays *supposed* to add Received: headers (as in, required by
>> RFCs)? Were I to get a spam (of the sort that is inevitable) that I
>> *knew* came from a Postini IP, but no indication in the headers of
>> how it got to there, what should I think?
>
> That is sort of the crux of the argument. They sorta kinda look like
> store-and-forward relays, but that is not what they are about, and it
> isn't really what they do. Their competition (some "firewalls", for
> example) does the same sorts of things, but they don't put SMTP
> headers into the message.
That doesn't really answer my question, though. I'm confused as to whether
it is Postini, or "their competition," that is doing things incorrectly.
--
Terry Austin
Your worst inhibitions tend to psych you out in the end.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: TesterTester
Date: Mar 31, 2007 20:17
Is there any way of making money by selling a spammed stock short?
Or is the price so low to begin with that there's no room to sell
short? Or might you get in trouble for trading on the basis of
knowledge of stock manipulation rather than the inherent profitability
or lack of profitability of the company?
|
| |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3tRobert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Date: Mar 31, 2007 20:11
> From: s...@ panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
> I object to mail from spam-supporting ISPs. Therefore, such mail is
> objectionable. Therefore, action taken to block it is permitted by
> law.
You've been one of my heroes every since you defined a reasonable
way to measure newsgroup spam (square root of number of
cross-posted newsgroups for each separate article, directly adding
those values for all the separate articles that have substantially
similar content hence can be considered part of one big spam run)
and a reasonable threshold for automatic cancellation (something on
the order of 20 or 30 per rolling 30-day window if I recall).
Here you go again posting something truly fine. Given the ambiguous
wording of the law, I find your interpretation of it totally
reasonable. Accordingly it's clear that the law is unconstitutional
as "ex post facto", so vague that somebody can assign any meaning
they want after the fact. I hope the courts agree with us.
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
