Microsoft speaks out against New Zealand's new anti-spam law

"Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out
against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could
impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.

Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...17258&from=rss

Im

> Imhotep scribbled:
> "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
> spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
> warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
> marketing'.

> Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...17258&from=rss

There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
company.....
That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....

--
mlvburke@xxxxxxxx.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

Max Burke wrote:

>> Imhotep scribbled:
>> "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
>> spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
>> warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
>> marketing'.
>
>> Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...17258&from=rss
>
> There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
> company.....
> That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
>

....how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about those same
companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems from
becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an "important
thing"....

As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...

Im

Imhotep wrote:
> Max Burke wrote:

>>
>>There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
>>company.....
>>That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
>>
>
>
> ...how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about those same
> companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems from
> becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an "important
> thing"....
>
> As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...
>
> Im

There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the model
that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool are
customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies inspire
customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places for
employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago. The
second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
Microsoft employees care to comment?

optikl wrote:

> Imhotep wrote:
>> Max Burke wrote:
>
>>>
>>>There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
>>>company.....
>>>That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
>>>
>>
>>
>> ...how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about those
>> same companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems
>> from becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an
>> "important thing"....
>>
>> As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...
>>
>> Im
>
> There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the model
> that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool are
> customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies inspire
> customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places for
> employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago. The
> second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
> Microsoft employees care to comment?

True. Speaking as a so called "*nix advocate". If they would just stick to
the business model of "Make the best product at the best price" I would not
criticize them. However, they will bend (or break) laws to ensure their
dominance. They have long forgotten about their customers...and have to
rely on illegal business practices to stay on top...


They are even for spammers...ah but yes, "email marketers" have money. I bet
many "email marketers" are also Microsoft business partners...

Im

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:20:13 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> Take this to alt.microsoft.wingers
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Ah you're just bummed out because your demigod supports spammers...

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:29:44 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:

>"Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out
>against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could
>impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.
>
>Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
>
>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...17258&from=rss

Hmmm.

According to Mr Hamlin (of M$):

"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."

"This is so long as they label their e-mail as advertising, for
example by inserting the code "ADV" at the start of the subject line,
or "participate in an approved self-regulatory programme based on
e-mail best practices". "

lol - what a crock.

Once again, it's a case of M$ dictating what it *thinks* is
appropriate for the rest of the world.

I agree with the NZ Communications Minister:

"Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak
and has been rejected."

""We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you
have to opt out of spam?" "

Exactly.

Dazz

>Im

Dazz wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:29:44 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke
>>out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it
>>could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.
>>
>>Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
>>
>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...17258&from=rss
>
> Hmmm.
>
> According to Mr Hamlin (of M$):
>
> "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
> people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
> relationship with them."
>
> "This is so long as they label their e-mail as advertising, for
> example by inserting the code "ADV" at the start of the subject line,
> or "participate in an approved self-regulatory programme based on
> e-mail best practices". "
>
> lol - what a crock.
>
> Once again, it's a case of M$ dictating what it *thinks* is
> appropriate for the rest of the world.
>
> I agree with the NZ Communications Minister:
>
> "Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak
> and has been rejected."
>
> ""We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you
> have to opt out of spam?" "
>
> Exactly.
>
> Dazz
>
>>Im

Good points!

-- Imhotep

optikl wrote:
> Imhotep wrote:
>
>> Max Burke wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
>>> company.....
>>> That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
>>>
>>
>>
>> ...how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about
>> those same
>> companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems from
>> becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an
>> "important
>> thing"....
>>
>> As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...
>>
>> Im
>
>
> There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the model
> that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool are
> customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies inspire
> customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places for
> employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago. The
> second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
> Microsoft employees care to comment?

To me it is a question of "who" Microsoft considers its most valuable
customers. Apparently it is not the paying customers, but DRM
advocates, and "advertisers" and their own interests (they do own the
worlds largest movie archive and worlds 3rd largest studio and 2nd
largest TV network).

I have already considered the hardware DRM based approach that MS is now
foisting indicating they have to because the "movie studios demand it"
(indication of customer) before they will allow us the next generation
of digital content. I calculate it will take about $500 in hardware
modifications to break the protection.

Additionally the broken content will be free of any DRM constraint.
This would be illegal however the pirates I do not believe will have any
issue with the limitation.

I am just curious how many millions it will cost their paying customers,
to protect the DRM advocates, on a scheme that won't work. Yes, it
will require hardware modifications, but this behavior has always pushed
the envelope. I expect Freenet and other similar technologies to
blossom in the next decade completely changing the web as we know it
today, and thwarting those who think they control it. It shall be fun to
watch.

Winged

Winged wrote:

> optikl wrote:
>> Imhotep wrote:
>>
>>> Max Burke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are far more important things to hate in the world than a
>>>> software company.....
>>>> That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about
>>> those same
>>> companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems from
>>> becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an
>>> "important
>>> thing"....
>>>
>>> As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...
>>>
>>> Im
>>
>>
>> There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the model
>> that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool are
>> customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies inspire
>> customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places for
>> employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago. The
>> second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
>> Microsoft employees care to comment?
>
> To me it is a question of "who" Microsoft considers its most valuable
> customers. Apparently it is not the paying customers, but DRM
> advocates, and "advertisers" and their own interests (they do own the
> worlds largest movie archive and worlds 3rd largest studio and 2nd
> largest TV network).
>
> I have already considered the hardware DRM based approach that MS is now
> foisting indicating they have to because the "movie studios demand it"
> (indication of customer) before they will allow us the next generation
> of digital content. I calculate it will take about $500 in hardware
> modifications to break the protection.
>
> Additionally the broken content will be free of any DRM constraint.
> This would be illegal however the pirates I do not believe will have any
> issue with the limitation.
>
> I am just curious how many millions it will cost their paying customers,
> to protect the DRM advocates, on a scheme that won't work. Yes, it
> will require hardware modifications, but this behavior has always pushed
> the envelope. I expect Freenet and other similar technologies to
> blossom in the next decade completely changing the web as we know it
> today, and thwarting those who think they control it. It shall be fun to
> watch.
>
> Winged

Excellent comments. I also agree. Most modern commercial inventions were
invented based on customer need. However, now-a-days we are seeing
companies dictate what customers want! Hummm....something is wrong with
that. I see it going down like this. Microsoft and various other groups
will team up to try to slow down and stall technologies other than the
technologies that fit into their plan (Linux, etc) by pitching bogus IP
laws, etc....Eventually, things will work out and MS will be left with a
bad rep and unwanted software....

Im

Dazz wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:29:44 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out
>>against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could
>>impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.
>>
>>Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
>>
>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...17258&from=rss
>
>
> Hmmm.
>
> According to Mr Hamlin (of M$):
>
> "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
> people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
> relationship with them."
>
> "This is so long as they label their e-mail as advertising, for
> example by inserting the code "ADV" at the start of the subject line,
> or "participate in an approved self-regulatory programme based on
> e-mail best practices". "
>
> lol - what a crock.
>
> Once again, it's a case of M$ dictating what it *thinks* is
> appropriate for the rest of the world.
>
> I agree with the NZ Communications Minister:
>
> "Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak
> and has been rejected."
>
> ""We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you
> have to opt out of spam?" "
>
> Exactly.
>
> Dazz
>
>
>>Im
>
>

Has anyone found this bill? This is the most sensible approach I have
heard of.

Advertisers don't pay for my bandwidth, I do, therefore I should be the
one who asks to use it.

I am curious if the law precludes someone requiring an opt in as part of
a EULA. The law will not be effective unless they ensure explicit
permission are separate from any software or hardware licensing
otherwise everyone will be allowed to extend opt in with company and
their business partners, which is not uncommon now.

The opt in should be explicit and outside any other agreement.

There should also be something that also constrains their (or their
authorized business partners) the frequency of contact. I surly don't
need 25 mails from the same entity for Viagra daily. Pretty sure I
didn't need the first one.

Winged

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:19:16 +1200, "Max Burke"
<mlvburke@xxxxxxxxx.nz> wrote:

>> Imhotep scribbled:
>> "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
>> spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
>> warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
>> marketing'.
>
>> Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...17258&from=rss
>
>There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
>company.....
>That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....

Whether or not someone is a *nix advocate doesn't have anything to do
with it.

I know numerous people who have a strong dislike of M$ for various
reasons (bugs, security issues, anti-competitive behaviour, dirty
trick campaigns, etc etc) and most of them have never even heard of
Linux or any other *nix variant.

M$ is a target for peoples dislike for a reason - and it's got nothing
to do with being a *nix advocate.

Dazz

Winged wrote:
> optikl wrote:

>>
>> There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the
>> model that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool
>> are customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies
>> inspire customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places
>> for employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago.
>> The second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
>> Microsoft employees care to comment?
>
>
> To me it is a question of "who" Microsoft considers its most valuable
> customers. Apparently it is not the paying customers, but DRM
> advocates, and "advertisers" and their own interests (they do own the
> worlds largest movie archive and worlds 3rd largest studio and 2nd
> largest TV network).
>
> I have already considered the hardware DRM based approach that MS is now
> foisting indicating they have to because the "movie studios demand it"
> (indication of customer) before they will allow us the next generation
> of digital content. I calculate it will take about $500 in hardware
> modifications to break the protection.
>
> Additionally the broken content will be free of any DRM constraint. This
> would be illegal however the pirates I do not believe will have any
> issue with the limitation.
>
> I am just curious how many millions it will cost their paying customers,
> to protect the DRM advocates, on a scheme that won't work. Yes, it
> will require hardware modifications, but this behavior has always pushed
> the envelope. I expect Freenet and other similar technologies to
> blossom in the next decade completely changing the web as we know it
> today, and thwarting those who think they control it. It shall be fun to
> watch.
>
> Winged

Well, you make some very keen observations. In the end, it's the paying
customers who count. In the past, there were really few options for home
users, or businesses. For example, 15 years ago, having a Mac was not a
viable option within my business organization, so I got rid of the Mac's
I owned. Today, there is no reason, financial or otherwise, for me not
to be using a Mac. The price gap has narrowed considerably, for both
software and hardware. I just recently purchased a new PowerBook and
will replace all my Windows machines with Mac's in the near future. Or I
may go FreeBSD. It's like with Broadband, when there is no competition,
or it's not viable, you put up with the service they give you. But you
wait until the time comes when you have a viable other option. In your
examples above, it looks like Microsoft needs to remember "you dance
with the one who brought you to the dance".

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:18:39 +1000, Dazz <cashdj@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:19:16 +1200, "Max Burke"
>><mlvburke@xxxxxxxxx.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>> Imhotep scribbled:
>>>> "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
>>>> spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
>>>> warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
>>>> marketing'.
>>>
>>>> Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
>>>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...17258&from=rss
>>>
>>>There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
>>>company.....
>>>That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
>>
>>Whether or not someone is a *nix advocate doesn't have anything to do
>>with it.
>>
>>I know numerous people who have a strong dislike of M$ for various
>>reasons (bugs, security issues, anti-competitive behaviour, dirty
>>trick campaigns, etc etc) and most of them have never even heard of
>>Linux or any other *nix variant.
>>
>>M$ is a target for peoples dislike for a reason - and it's got nothing
>>to do with being a *nix advocate.
>
>
> in this case it is, as the guy is always bleating about it and
> attacking anyone who says that MS is good, and the story
> is probably just that too.
>
> Thankfully nobody is burning heritics ... yet.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Jim, I never attack anyone who says that Microsoft is "good" when they can
back it up with data. Microsoft has it's place in things and when they do
something right I will give them credit. Just the same when they do
something wrong I will "attack" them.

Now, when linux/BSD or open source does something wrong I will also point it
out. And when they do something right I all also toss them praise.

I believe this to be fair and reasonable.

The problem I have with people like you is; you tend to not only believe but
also defend the Microsoft propaganda machine. Instead, I would suggest that
you be honest with yourself and the people you talk with.

As for Microsoft I will continue to "attack" them for their business
practices, for forgeting about their customers, for their illegal business
maneuvers, etc, etc. When they cease so will I. Again, this is fair.

Imhotep

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:17:46 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Jim, I never attack anyone who says that Microsoft is "good" when they can
>>back it up with data.
>
> and yet you did in the thread I started about MS taking legal action
> against a spammer. As I've already said, I don't own shares in the
> company, but I do remember using other products before MS got
> going and they were also full of bugs. Even the best, IBM was
> continually releasing patches for the System/3 OS and the machines
> that followed it.

The spammer probably was not a "Microsoft Partner"...

> At present nearly all my business involves machines running MS
> software, having dropped the clients using SCO products and the
> sole Linux user because its too much trouble The only guy who
> liked Macs died and they went in the bin.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but, playing along, my day job is
at a major Fund company. Specifically, I work in a subsidy that does all
the statical market research including stock market mathematical algorithm
research. We are a 98% Linux company from the desktop to the servers. We
are also a 19 Billion dollar company (that number is our contribution and
does not count the parent company's contribution). Again, not really sure
what this has to do with the original post....

> Now turning to what MS are actually advocating:
>
> "Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that
> businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases
> that they had already compiled to send out email.

This is spam technology 101. Where you think your email address is stored
anyway?

> He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies
> would be able to email information about new products and services
> to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving email about
> other services they had bought from the company in the past. "

<snip OK, I have read enough>

A rose by any other name is still a rose and spam by any other name is still
spam. In the article, and I qoute:

He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers.
From The Article: 'Though often criticized as too meek, US anti-spam
legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved
effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers.

Look at what he is saying:
1) CAN SPAM has been effective???? Bullshit!
2) We want to be able to spam because we (Microsoft) make money from it...so
screw the people and everyone else...
3) You will enjoy your daily SPAM because we (Microsoft) say you will

Yet again, this is another case of Microsoft forgeting about their customers
because they have teamed up, and are making money, from "marketing"
companies that use SPAM...

Are you really that blind to come rushing to the defense of a company that
supports "marketers" that use spam to "market"? I remember you were the
one, about 3 months ago, that was calling for a DEATH penalty for SPAMMERS.
Hummmm...what changed Jim? Did you change your mind just because you found
out that Microsoft supports SPAMMERS???? Are you really that bind and like
to be lead around by the nose? Do you really believe in the unholy Gospel
according to Microsoft? Are you really that naive?

Open up your eyes...and stop being a hypocrite.

-- Imhotep

optikl wrote:
> Winged wrote:
>
>> optikl wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the
>>> model that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool
>>> are customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies
>>> inspire customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places
>>> for employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while
>>> ago. The second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third;
>>> any Microsoft employees care to comment?
>>
>>
>>
>> To me it is a question of "who" Microsoft considers its most valuable
>> customers. Apparently it is not the paying customers, but DRM
>> advocates, and "advertisers" and their own interests (they do own the
>> worlds largest movie archive and worlds 3rd largest studio and 2nd
>> largest TV network).
>>
>> I have already considered the hardware DRM based approach that MS is
>> now foisting indicating they have to because the "movie studios demand
>> it" (indication of customer) before they will allow us the next
>> generation of digital content. I calculate it will take about $500 in
>> hardware modifications to break the protection.
>>
>> Additionally the broken content will be free of any DRM constraint.
>> This would be illegal however the pirates I do not believe will have
>> any issue with the limitation.
>>
>> I am just curious how many millions it will cost their paying
>> customers, to protect the DRM advocates, on a scheme that won't
>> work. Yes, it will require hardware modifications, but this behavior
>> has always pushed the envelope. I expect Freenet and other similar
>> technologies to blossom in the next decade completely changing the web
>> as we know it today, and thwarting those who think they control it. It
>> shall be fun to watch.
>>
>> Winged
>
>
> Well, you make some very keen observations. In the end, it's the paying
> customers who count. In the past, there were really few options for home
> users, or businesses. For example, 15 years ago, having a Mac was not a
> viable option within my business organization, so I got rid of the Mac's
> I owned. Today, there is no reason, financial or otherwise, for me not
> to be using a Mac. The price gap has narrowed considerably, for both
> software and hardware. I just recently purchased a new PowerBook and
> will replace all my Windows machines with Mac's in the near future. Or I
> may go FreeBSD. It's like with Broadband, when there is no competition,
> or it's not viable, you put up with the service they give you. But you
> wait until the time comes when you have a viable other option. In your
> examples above, it looks like Microsoft needs to remember "you dance
> with the one who brought you to the dance".


Sounds like Apple may be supporting the new hardware restrictions too.
The too want to protect their digital content. I wonder if this is
related to Apple moving to the X86 platform.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...hdcp-vista.ars

Of course Apple has media interests too. I suspect they may just
eventually turn off playback at some future point in time the lower
resolutions. I wager the how to will be posted long before the turn off
the low res content.

Winged

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:08:22 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>A rose by any other name is still a rose and spam by any other name is
>>still spam. In the article, and I qoute:
>
> clearly we read different articles.
>
> However if the Microsoft objection is as I quoted, then its
> reasonable
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Is it reasonable to say that CAN SPAM is reducing SPAM???? Is it reasonable
for a very influential company to try and reduce, instead of increase, the
amount of protection for people from spammers? Come on Jim! I have
criticized you for many things in the past but, until now, I did not think
you were a feeble minded hypocite...

One thing is for sure, the next time you rant-and-rave about spammers and
how they should be put to death, I will mock you like I have never done
before. There is nothing in this World worse than a bold face lying
hypocrite. So be forewarned, you have lost the right to complain about
spammers...

Oh yea according to you and Microsoft they are not spammers they are "email
marketers"...

-- Imhotep

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:42:55 +0200, Jim Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way>
wrote:

<snipped>

>in this case it is, as the guy is always bleating about it and
>attacking anyone who says that MS is good, and the story
>is probably just that too.

Maybe, but we can't tar everyone with the same brush.

I'm definitely a *nix advocate, however, I do make my money from
supporting M$ (probably like most of us here).

Personally, I have a love hate relationship with M$, particularly when
it comes to their software/os's.

However, when it comes to their business tactics and their FUD
campaigns, I have more of a hate hate relationship with them.

>Thankfully nobody is burning heritics ... yet.

Yet. ;-P

Dazz

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 07:12:56 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:08:22 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A rose by any other name is still a rose and spam by any other name is
>>>>still spam. In the article, and I qoute:
>>>
>>> clearly we read different articles.
>>>
>>> However if the Microsoft objection is as I quoted, then its
>>> reasonable
>>> --
>>> Jim Watt
>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>>
>>Is it reasonable to say that CAN SPAM is reducing SPAM????
>
> I didn't say that.

No but you did say:
"However if the Microsoft objection is as I quoted, then its
reasonable."

Microsoft is saying that New Zealand SHOULD NOT pass this law because CAN
SPAM is "effective" (yet another bullshit lie/misdirection from Microsoft).
Furthermore, they are saying that marketing companies should be allowed to
send email advertisements even when people have *NOT* signed up for it.
Let's look at the definition of spam: Simply when one sends unsolicited
email. It is a very simple definition. Afterall, it should be required, by
law, that the recipient signup for the advertisements. The choice should be
with the recipient NOT the company. Microsoft is making a pitch that it
should be the company's choice....Hence SPAM! I do not see the "reason"
that you clam...

>>Is it reasonable for a very influential company to try and reduce, instead
>>of increase, the amount of protection for people from spammers?
>
> In the context of what I posted its reasonable to allow companies to
> send emails to their clients.

Stop side stepping the issue! No one said it is not reasonable for a company
to send emails to it's clients. This post is about SPAM. When a company
sends unsolicited emails and you know it....

>>I did not think you were a feeble minded hypocite...
>
> I see logical argument has been exhausted and you are back
> to insults.

Like I said before, there is nothing worse in this World than a hypocrite. I
read your many posts about how SPAMMERS should be put to death. I read how
angry you were and, believe it or not, I felt your pain as we all have to
deal with this issue. Then I see you agreeing with an argument to *NOT*
pass a law that protects people from SPAM. H Y P O C R I T E!!!!!!!!

>
>>So be forewarned, you have lost the right to complain about
>>spammers...
>
> I don't think so.

Yes, you should. You are agreeing that this law should NOT be passed when it
clearly protects people from SPAMMERS, therefore you are pro SPAM.
Therefore the next time you compain about SPAMMERS I will mock you with
renewed intensity.

>>Oh yea according to you and Microsoft they are not spammers they are
>>"email marketers"...
>
> You could actually read what I posted rather than make it up.

I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU:
SINCE YOU HAVE STATED THAT YOU ARE AGAINST THIS LAW AND COMPANIES SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO SEND SPAM WHY ARE YOU HIDING YOUR REAL EMAIL ADDRESS?

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOU MOUTH IS JIM AND START USING YOUR REAL EMAIL
ADDRESS. HERE LET ME HELP YOU OUT:
jimwatt@pobox.com
jimwatt@pobox.com
jimwatt@pobox.com
jimwatt@pobox.com


> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt wrote:
> In the context of what I posted its reasonable to allow companies to
> send emails to their clients.

<pedant> it's, Jim! </pedant>

But is it reasonable, Jim to allow companies to send e-mails to people
who may, or may not be, their clients?

Surely, this is what spam is all about?

I object _very_strongly_ to some random company of whom I am not a
client sending me any sort of e-mail communication - my erections are
fine, thanks ;)

I also object _equally_strongly_ to companies that I have dealt with,
but have not given _explicit_ permission to send me mail shots, that
then fill my In Box with crap.

Do you not get any snail-mail spam in Gib. then Jim?

I certainly do here in the UK, and it pisses me off just as it must piss
you off over there.

Who was the spammer over in the good ol' US of A that they identified
and had all their snail mail spam sent to him? What was his reply -
something about 'victimisation'

Na, sorry, there has to be a definite and controlled 'opt-in', with a
verifiable return address for ANY e-mail sent over the general Internet.

Of course I don't include Usenet here, otherwise _most_ of us wouldn't
be able to post anyway, would we ;)

Steve

<snip>

You did not answer the question Jim, Why are you hidding your email address?
After all, you don't seem to mind "Email Marketers". I am eagerly awaiting
your answer...

>
> <my email address snipped>
>
> Thank you for posting that on Usenet, now the rest of the group know
> you for what you are. But its not that secret, I even put it on some
> of my websites and whois records.

....and we all know you for what you are. Why is it such a big deal posting
one of your email addresses? After all CAN SPAM is here to protect you.

Answer the question I asked you. Why are you hiding your email address?

Let's see how many times I have to ask you and how many times you "side
step" the answer. What do you have to hide by being honest? So, again, I
challenge you to answer the question. Try not to wilt under the pressure...

-- Imhotep

> child.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:51:56 +0100, Steve Welsh <sjw@stevew.net>
> wrote:
>
>>But is it reasonable, Jim to allow companies to send e-mails to people
>>who may, or may not be, their clients?
>>
>>Surely, this is what spam is all about?
>
> Not really.
>
> If I occasionally got some email promoting products of interest
> I would not complain. What needs to be stopped is the torrent
> of messages about 419 frauds, get a bigger dick, and see nakid
> girls/boyz/small animals.and you have won the lottery again.
>
> I'm not that botered by the email I get every six months trying to
> sell me flexible printed circuits as one day I might want some.
>
> Its a question of balance.
>
>>Do you not get any snail-mail spam in Gib. then Jim?
>
> Not really, and certainly not the way they do in the UK
> plus I have always been economical with my address
> and encouraged a change in the way things are done
> here to minimise the scope for postal spam. Those doing so
> on fax have been discouraged, in one case their telephone
> line was terminated with prejudice.

Hummmm... You would not have to do this if SPAM was made illegal...ah yes,
but you are pro SPAM so you think we all should do these ridiculous steps
to hide our email address. After all, if Microsoft says SPAM is good who
are we to say what we need or want.

> In terms of 'post' its a couple of a5 leaflets a week and
> there is a bin next to the mailboxes.
>
>
>>Na, sorry, there has to be a definite and controlled 'opt-in', with a
>>verifiable return address for ANY e-mail sent over the general Internet.
>
> Things need to change. The problem I find is that although filtering
> takes care ot 98% ofthe stupid nonsense when someone new sends
> me an email there is a 50% chance they are trashed.

Again, all the more reason to go against Microsoft and other "Email
Marketers" and persuade the Gov (your Gov) to get serious about SPAM...then
all of these stupid steps to filter will not be needed.

> In terms of security, the email system really needs to be replaced
> by something which authenticates the sender, backed with sensible
> legislation to prevent spamming.

"...backed with sensible legislation to prevent spamming" Oh no...Hypocrite
ALERT! Jim that is exactly what NZ is trying to do! Except big business (ie
Microsoft and marketing companies) are trying hard to block it. You change
your position more than a politician a month before election day. You say
"sensible" legislation but then back Microsoft's position in NZ. Do you
have a clue?


> In the case of the NZ law, the MS objection seems to have been that
> it was a bit too far, and laws that are unworkable are worthless.

The NZ position is that the power should be the recipients and NOT the
company. This is sensible legislation. If someone wants to receive
advertisements from company A, then that person CAN CHOOSE to sign up for
it, else the company CAN NOT legally send SPAM. This is very reasonable and
should be universal (Global).

> it seems, however, that anyone defending them is in for the wrath of
> the unwashed.

Smoke some more crack Jim.

>>Of course I don't include Usenet here, otherwise _most_ of us wouldn't
>>be able to post anyway, would we ;)
>
> Quite so. Indeed, usenet seems to have met spam and survived
> better than email, probably because there are fewer servers accepting
> postings and their owners are prepared to teminate accounts of the
> wrongdoers.

Apples and Oranges. Most news servers require a logon to post (or come from
another news server that requires a logon) Email is not constructed the
same way (by default).

Summary:
The NZ law makes sense, put the power in the recentant hands NOT big
business. Some people (like you Jim) are so blinded by Big Business that
you change your view to mirror with companies like Microsoft even at the
expense of Internet Bandwidth, Customer frustration, Email Security,
Company Resource Utilizations...all because you have been told what to do
for so long by this company you have lost the power to think on your
own...how pathetic

Im

> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

WTF is that about, Jim?
Some sort of tinned meat?

Jim Watt wrote:

> http://www.spam.com
>

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:31:04 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>You would not have to do this if SPAM was made illegal
>
> But its not
>
> http://www.spam.com
>
> Wonderful stuff, I used to work for the company that made it
> .
> Now get a life.
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Still waiting for my question to be answered...Come on Jim I am openly
challenging you, in front of all these newsgroup readers, to answer the
question...if you think that CAN SPAN has been so effective at preventing
SPAM why are you still hiding your real email address...

Come on Jim, grow a set and answer the question.

Steve Welsh wrote:

> WTF is that about, Jim?
> Some sort of tinned meat?
>
> Jim Watt wrote:
>
>> http://www.spam.com
>>

I don't even think he knows what he is saying half the time...he has
diarrhea of the mouth...it just keeps on flowing and sticking up all around
it.

* Steve Welsh <sjw@stevew.net>:
> WTF is that about, Jim?
> Some sort of tinned meat?

More like no where near meat Steve. They take that parts off the cutting
room floor that aren't even fit to be made into a hotdog and squeeze it
into a can and call it Spam. I still can't figure out how they can
legally sell it for human consumption.

Jason

"Imhotep" wrote:

> Jim Watt wrote:
[SPAM]
>> Wonderful stuff, I used to work for the company that made it

> Still waiting for my question to be answered...Come on Jim I am
> openly challenging you, in front of all these newsgroup readers

Nobody cares. Get over yourself.

And for your information "spam" is unsolicited bulk email (UBE),
whereas "SPAM" is a canned meat product.

See the 3rd paragraph here for Hormel's position on the matter:
http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm

Ant wrote:

> "Imhotep" wrote:
>
>> Jim Watt wrote:
> [SPAM]
>>> Wonderful stuff, I used to work for the company that made it
>
>> Still waiting for my question to be answered...Come on Jim I am
>> openly challenging you, in front of all these newsgroup readers
>
> Nobody cares. Get over yourself.

I don't believe I was speaking to you....

> And for your information "spam" is unsolicited bulk email (UBE),
> whereas "SPAM" is a canned meat product.

Whatever...

> See the 3rd paragraph here for Hormel's position on the matter:
> http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm

....and I don't care...

<snip>

....still waiting...at least you are predictable..

>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

"Imhotep" wrote:

> Ant wrote:
>> "Imhotep" wrote:
>>> Still waiting for my question to be answered...Come on Jim I am
>>> openly challenging you, in front of all these newsgroup readers
>>
>> Nobody cares. Get over yourself.
>
> I don't believe I was speaking to you....

I've got more information for you. Usenet is not a one-to-one
communication medium. I am one of "these newsgroup readers" and an
occasional poster.

>> And for your information "spam" is unsolicited bulk email (UBE),
>> whereas "SPAM" is a canned meat product.
>
> Whatever...
>
>> See the 3rd paragraph here for Hormel's position on the matter:
>> http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm
>
> ...and I don't care...

With regard to your question to Jim, and caring, I'm reminded of the
Sex Pistol's song "Pretty Vacant".

Which starts like this:
"There's no point in asking you'll get no reply"

And near the end, goes something like this:
"we're so pretty oh so pretty
vacant...now
and we don't care".