Why does this group have so much spam?

David 71david at libero.it
Mon Aug 31 21:04:27 CEST 2009


Il Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:08:46 -0700 (PDT), r ha scritto:


> Yes i agree but your logic is flawed. If someone cuts my brake lines
> and i cannot stop who is to blame? Or if someone throws nails on the
> highway and i crash, who is to blame? Obviously you cannot blame the
> car owner. However if i let my brake pads wear out until they are
> metal on metal and run over some poor old lady crossing the street --
> well now you got me! ;)
> 
> But you cannot apply this logic when a hacker compromises someones
> computer, it the same as cutting their brake lines. How can you
> honestly expect that Joe computer user will know of this infection? 

I expect that user makes periodical and hopefully frequent checks to his
computer. Today most of the people simply does absolutely nothing.
Obvioulsy there is a vulnerability time between two check, but Perfection
does not belongs to human beings so we must accept the risk of being cracked
and being aware that we will charged for our computer actions, even if we
are not directly responsible.
It's a question of point of view: in italy if a thief steals a car and
causes an accident the car's owner's assurance (having a car assurance is
mandatory) must refund the victims. That's because protections of victims is
first priority.
Obviously the owner can not be charged 


>Do
> you even know where your brake lines are? Even hackers can be hacked
> without ever knowing it! The only sure fire way is VM's or system re-
> installs.

That's a problem of the computer owner. Why should the rest of the world be
charged of *his* problem while keeping him safe from suffering any
consequence?

>[...]
>> I think it's time to switch to responsible computing and the mail-tax would
>> charge each person of its own costs and annoyances without affectig the rest
>> of the world.
> 
> What, this is madness! If you have terrorist terrorizing your country
> you don't tax the public when they blow up a shopping mall so you can
> rebuild it! No you kill the terrorist in a harsh and painful manner
> and make an example of them, then you seize there monies. You should
> direct your anger to the proper internet security authorities(and more
> importantly to the perpetrator's) and not the innocent victims of such
> attacks. I want you to sit back and think very deeply about your
> proposal here because it is horribly wrong.

Madness, you say? Let's examine the situation a bit moore deeply.

First, the mail-tax would is not for rebuilding the destroyed building after
the attack but, at the opposite, to prevent the attack. Wouldn't you pay a
small tax to prevent terrorist's attacks?
The mail-tax would be really small, if you send 1000 mails at month (a real
huge traffic, for a non spammer!) the bill would be about 10 cents. 
Do you really think this is too much to get rid of most of the spam?

Second, today we *are* paying that tax to repair building destroyed by
terrorists. 
We are paying and hidden tax in terms of HW and human resources needed by
ISPs to manage that huge (~90%) useless/malicius traffic. (I don't mention
const related to dalays, denial of services, theft of informations...)
Those costs are obviously charged by ISPs on our montly subscription bill. 
By the mail-tax we achive 3 results: 
1. stopping forever direct spammers.
2. make each owner aware that his computer is compromised when the montly
bill is higher than usual.
3. make that owner aware that *he* must pay for *his* problem and the rest
of the world (included, I hope, you) is no more willing to be charged for
this.

The mail-tax may not be Final Solution against spam, but helps a lot.

> 
> It is so easy to just slap a tax on something, yes that will solve
> everything. *sarcasm*

You should reconsider your position because you are actually blaming the
present situation, not my proposal.
Finally a little criticims: spam and related malware is a problem growing
day by day. I am proposing a solution and if somebody doest't like it, well,
he should propose a better one. Just saying "NO!" and turning head aside
hoping that the problem will solve by itsef is no more acceptable.

> 
>>> If you want to avoid usenet spam and don't want to filter it yourself,
>>> find a provider with more aggressive spam filter.
>>
>> This is not the solution. You are saying that if your neighbour makes loud
>> noises you can not call police to impose him to cease but you can only make
>> your home soundproof.
> 
> or you could go over and punch him in the nose, works every time for
> me ;-)

In italy we say: "preventing is better than treating" (a disease).

Regards
David



More information about the Python-list mailing list