anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

Sat May 4 00:13:52 UTC 2002

Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home 
mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of 
us regard it.

A) it wastes bandwidth
B) It wastes our time
C) It's the "litter" of an otherwise clean Internet.
D) It's a method of placing the costs for the actual emailing on someone 
else without their explicit permission...the ISP, the user, and the ISP's 
other paying customers all pay for the act, either directly or indirectly.

We need to make it illegal as soon as possible everywhere.....

At 15:27 5/3/02 -0700, you wrote:

>I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
>can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
>friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what the big
>deal with spam is.  Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some
>of my accounts more than others but I also get a real truckload in my
>snailmail box.  Just as with all the pottery barn catalogs <no offense
>to pottery barn I guess>:) I have a delete key just like my trash can.
>I know at one time the argument was made, and quite correctly that
>people were paying to receive this service and these messages cost them
>money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per
>packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end
>user to filter properly and or dress that delete key.  I always shut
>down customers who spam and disrupt service simply because I don't want
>the backlash or want specific ips blocked but in a way I don't feel its
>right that the carriers do the filtering it seems tome up to the end
>user.
>
>On Fri, 3 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >
> > > > I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> > > > you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> > > > have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> > > > and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm that you do want the account.
> > >
> > > spam is like pollution in that (a) whenever you're not sure if you're
> > > doing it, you probably are, and (b) if everybody did whatever it is,
> > > life would be universally worse for, well, everybody.
> > >
> > > > Random disclaimer: Yes, we're a competitor of no-ip.com's... And 
> yes, we
> > > > used to send similar emails to people signing up for an account,
> > > > although nowadays instead of sending them an initial password we send a
> > > > confirm URL instead.
> > >
> > > that's the right approach.  no-ip's problem was they presumed my 
> permission.
> > >
> >
> > You don't even have to be in the "big idiot" league to figure out that in
> > both the "wrong" and the "right" approach as sanctioned above by a higher
> > authority, an email message (aka spam) is sent to the presumed subscriber.
> >
> > One sends a password, one asks for permission to issue a password on their
> > site. What's the difference in the annoy factor, if indeed one were to be
> > subscribed by a secret "admirer"?
> >
> > Mr. Halmu chose to think, rather than bindly obey...
> >
> > --Mitch
> > NetSide
> >