I use Entourage on Mac, and I just set up a separate "noway..." email account that I've directed the Entourage newsreader to be a part of. That way, my news posts get the silly address, my regular email gets a correct "reply to" address.
ISP need to allow users to augment their anti-spam filters with rules similar to those by Outlook or Entourage. Earthlink doesn't allow that; it can block or accept whole domains or lists of specific senders, but that means keeping my address book sync'ed with yet another address book, in this case by hand.
ISPs need to take more responsibility here, at least optionally (their subscribers could opt in giving them permission to scan and delete suspect emails). If Norton or Macafee can find spam and viral attachments, so can earthink. The ISPs could stop many email spread viruses before they get very far at all once they are identified. But nnnooooooooooo. Sigh.
Ed. in article snipped-for-privacy@THEFINALFRONTIERfrontiernet.net, Franz Troppenz at snipped-for-privacy@THEFINALFRONTIERfrontiernet.net wrote on 9/25/03 5:18 PM:
I have been getting hundreds per day for the last week. So have many online friends, so it seems to be universal. Just ride-it-out and keep your Anti-Virus software files up-to-date.
Also, do regular system scans for virus activity, as the odd one may still get through! 2 out of 1200+ have managed to infect my system for a while, until the Symantec update file (yesterday) detected them and cleaned everything out!
All I do is set 'Mail Rules' to delete any message with an attachment, while the Virus is at large! You may lose a couple of legit. Emails, but it's worth it in the short-term!
If you are getting the "undelivered mail" replies then your system IS INFECTED! One sign of this is to watch your Modem Activity Indicator - if it shows data being transferred while you are doing nothing, then it is most likely due to a virus at work in the computer!
WRONG! I doubt that my unix system is infected and it gets a number of ""unable to deliver mail" attempts everyday. If I am machine X and I tell machine U that I have an undeliverable message originated by machine U most mailers will, by default, accept the bogus reject. It's an old, scummy spammer trick. If my machine masqurades as machine U and down the line the message is "undeliverable" the machine that discovers this will attempt to return that mail to where?? .... machine U of course.
If life were only that simple. It could be lots of things, including legitimate activity. Does your machine "pop" mail at regular intervals for you?
Judge Nottingham of the Denver US District Court recently decided that unsolicited telephone call blocking via the FTC "do no call" registry is an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech. Apparently, he reasons that once cannot discriminate between commercial, charity, political, and other speech.
By his reasoning, spam and even worm virus email blocking would be a abridgement of freedom of speech. I can't wait for some spammer or wormer to try that defense: mass mailing, calling, or faxing is my right and laws abridging that right are unconstitutional.
Anyone have that judge's email and/or phone number? We should all send him a nice letter, email, or wish him a nice day during is midnight snooze. Hey, he gave us permission.
Unfortunately, at first blush and without reading any opinion by the judge, I have to agree with him. Basically, government "control" of speech is limited to Time, Place and Manner...NOT content. The FTC, or Congress by excluding political or non-ppprofits from the "list", makes the law content oriented.
I don't want my supper interrupted by a political or non-profit solicitation too.
IMO, when the politicos and non-profits are included it should pass Constitutional muster. But will Congress [politicians] exclude their niche?
The reason political and charity groups were excluded was to pass constitutional muster. Laws routinely regulate place and manner of commercial speech: no cig ads near schools, etc.
Ed
in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, TCol at snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote on 9/26/03 10:02 AM:
I have heard that approach already..but, IMO, since content other than political or non-profit is excluded is exactly why it should not pass muster. The cigarette ads prohibition was narrowly drawn and tailor-made for a specific government compelling interest...not so the FTC law. Again, I have not read the latest judge's decision and, perhaps foolishly, am second-guessing him as to his rationale. Wonder who might have an internet site assuming it's been so-published.
But I believe the law, as I understand its applicability, will probably get to the Supremes on First Amendment challenges. Whether injunctive relief is sought to bar its implementation pending the appeal process, is anyone's guess. I am sure the telemarketing industry will be pushing for it. Makes one wonder about the timing of this action just days before it should go into effect.
I know..this is way off topic and belongs elsewhere.
Gotcha - life is NEVER simple, but those were the thoughts that sprang to mind at the time! Regarding the unexplained activity, my refresh is set to every 20 minutes, whereas the modem lights were flashing every few seconds!
For FREE checks on System Exposure to online threats, go here:
Different decision by Judge West. He said that the law under which the FTC wrote the "do not call" regulations didn?t authorize such a regulation. What congress passed yesterday was a clarification specifically allowing a "do not all" registry and the FTC fine associated with their regulation.
Judge Nottingham rejected the regulations on free speech grounds. If his reasoning and ruling hold up, only a constitutional amendment will be able to overtrun it. As Tcol and others have noted, the judge may be right here.
But then, there are lots of commercial and other free speech time and place regulations: can't dance nude down Main street at noon (doesn't apply to Castro Street in San Francisco :), but you can dance nude at the local strip club. The judges problem was the vagueness of "commercial" calls and the permission for "charities" to call.
Congress and the FTC may have to rewrite the regulations to allow private telephone subscribers (and fax subscribers by extension, and actually, email, too, same reason) to give permission to use their resource (their own telephone, email box, fax machine, etc.). You are allowed to put a fence gate around your property to keep all forms of free speech out; if the telephone line can be defined the same way from your punch down inside, maybe a regulation can be drawn which will pass muster.
Meanwhile, Judges West and Nottingham are apparently getting lots of calls, emails, and faxes voicing political dissent: those can't be stopped for now. We shall see.
In the mean time, when a telemarketer calls, impolitely hang up. I also use caller id and SBC privacy manager to screen my calls. If there is no caller ID, privacy manager will block the call unless the user keys in a code (secret, bwa-hahahaha), or says his name. Then PM rings my phone and I have the chance to see who is calling or let them leave a message. Telemarketers have long since hung up. (in California, users can block private telephone caller ID in state, sort of like putting a mask on and ringing my door bell. So I have many acquaintances who whine at me until I explain it to 'em.)
Ed. in article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jon Miller at snipped-for-privacy@inow.com wrote on 9/26/03 11:40 AM:
Modem activity (depending on circumstances) can be a good "heads up" alert to pay attention ... make you suspicious. In, and of itself, it means nothing. There could be all kinds of protocol "keep alive" crud going on when you are online. If it's dialing up on its own that could be worrysome, if it's not time to "pop" yet.
Gee, is it actually legal for us to turn off our modems??? Doing so is blocking everyone's right to send us e-mails instantly. How about turning off the phone after a hard night out, when we want to sleep til mid-day???
is no caller ID, privacy manager will block the call unless the user keys in a code< I guess this would be ok but I don't feel I should pay for devices or additions to my phone service to stop these people. So when they, and not we (as with increased rates etc.) pay for me stopping them, well you get the picture. Not having one I just learned that with a cell phone you pay both ways. I would think it should be crime for a telemarketer to call you on a cell phone and have you pay!
Yeah, right. "ACR" or Automatic Call Rejection....and it simply does NOT work! The telemarketers get through no matter what. I complained to the phone company (as I have ACR here in California) and they said what these telemarketers do is put a device on their outgoing lines to create interference with the caller ID system, so their calls show as "Out of Area" and they get through no matter what.
Glad they ain't charging me for that ACR bullshit.....
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.