[Milsurplus] e-mail address harvesters of QTH.net

[Bob Camp]

Hi

I have been dealing with electronic junk mail for at least the last 
twenty years. I started out paying $200 a month phone bills to haul it 
around. Needless to say that's a bit more than it costs any of us 
today. The question is how much are you going to give up to eliminate 
spam.

Ok, in order to execute spammers on sight we might want to define 
exactly what spam is.

Anybody want to take a crack at an exact definition of spam?

Certainly I know spam when I see it, but that's a pretty flexible 
definition.

How about a loose definition of spam?

Ok, 75% of the mail is spam (as opposed to 75% of the traffic). Mail 
only makes up a small percentage of the traffic on the internet. We at 
least should have a loose definition ....

Be careful anything inside the definition and you will be shot on sight 
....

	Take Care

		Bob Camp
		KB8TQ


On Apr 2, 2005, at 3:07 PM, J. Forster wrote:

> RIGHT ON, Ken. !!!
>
> -John
>
> Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:
>
>> Bob Kamp wrote:
>>
>>> As long as we decide that being anonymous on the net is more 
>>> important
>>> than reducing spam we will have the problem.
>>
>> The only sure way to reduce or eliminate spam is to find all the
>> spammers and execute them...same goes for virus writers.
>>
>>> Given the major issues on
>>> both sides of the argument it's not an easy decision to make.
>>
>> I' m sorry, but don't think there ARE two sides to the issue.  I 
>> suppose
>> you could just as easily say that there are two sides of the issue of
>> burglary, or robbery, or embezzelment, or murder for that matter.  
>> There
>> aren't: just victim and perp.
>>
>> Ken Gordon W7EKB
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>