What prevents spammers simply ignoring the opt-out?
Liberty
some of the sites I have been spamed with.
In most cases the opt-out massage is not the main part of the web
site... it is linked behind some "contact us" link... and contains a
form of sorts.
What prevents spammers of hosting this opt-out page on some low
performance server... if it is goes down, no real impact on the
business... they can bring it up a week later no harm done.
evidently it does mattar because BS/BF did create a ripple... I simply
do not understand how.
attacking thier "order pruduct" form is much more intrusive, yet this
is not what Okopipi is aiming for... right?
Liberty
HAL9000
methodology! Sheesh.
The project is NOT being designed to DDOS the merchants web servers.
Recent discussions have been around the specific topic on how to avoid
possible DDOS of the merchants web servers.
The project is NOT directly addressing the spammers per se. The
spammers use bots and other hijacked machines to distribute the spam
you and I receive.
The project aims to let the MERCHANT know that we do not appreciate
getting their spam. The merchant after all is the person/organisation
that is PAYING for the advertising using spammers.
Now the spammer and the merchant may be more closely related than
simply merchant/spammer (and may be one and the same) but the point is
the project is intended to make it uneconomic for the merchant to
continue using spammers that send advertising to the users of Okopipi.
In plain english: The user of the Okopipi does not which to receive
advertising from the merchant and is invoking their right ot ask the
merchant to stop sending their advertising to the user.
It is in the merchants interest to ask their spammer (oh sorry mass
distribution emailer) not to send to Okopipi users.
In other words the person paying the spammer will be the person forcing
the spammer to comply.
So repeat after me, The Okopipi project is designed to allow it's users
to ask the merchants not to send any more spam to the user. The project
will not target the spammers directly.
Liberty
> Now the spammer and the merchant may be more closely related than
> simply merchant/spammer (and may be one and the same) but the point is
> the project is intended to make it uneconomic for the merchant to
> continue using spammers that send advertising to the users of Okopipi.
and I will highlight the key word in this sentence: "uneconomic"
it is assumed that if for every spam anyone get an opt-out massage will
be posted back at the seller site, the seller will be hurt in his
pocket. It will become "uneconomic" or less profitable for an honest
seller to use a spammer.
now read again my first post and repeat after me (its only fair since I
had to repeat your line): "What prevents spammers from simply ignoring
the opt-out?"
Kevin Winter
> it is assumed that if for every spam anyone get an opt-out massage will
> be posted back at the seller site, the seller will be hurt in his
> pocket. It will become "uneconomic" or less profitable for an honest
> seller to use a spammer.
I suppose you missed the earlier discussion on generating pseudo-valid
CC numbers. Part of filling out the spamvertised websites is to
submit an order. We use the entry spaces to fill in information that
passes their data validation algorithms, but gets the message across
to the merchant that the spam we are receiving is unwanted. Thats why
we give them a chance to willfully remove us from their list. When
they don't respond, we each fill out an order form for their product,
with valid-seeming information. We'll use a not-real (as opposed to
fake) credit card number so the order gets sent to the pending queue.
It will later fail to receive authorization on the charge, and in the
meantime the spamvertised website administrator will have seen our
message concealed within the order.
A website like this only needs 1% or less of people to purchase their
product to make it feasible to send the spam. if 20% of those people
use okopipi, the spamvertised website owner will be dealing with a
20:1 ratio of opt-out "orders" to legitamate orders, requiring him to
spend actual time sifting through and finding the valid orders. THIS
makes it uneconomic.
~Kevin
--
Open Source, Open Mind
Unit1911
> now read again my first post and repeat after me (its only fair since I
> had to repeat your line): "What prevents spammers from simply ignoring
> the opt-out?"
The seller gets tired of sorting out all the opt-out requests that are
mixed in with his valid orders and tells his hired spammer to stop
sending messages to Okopipi members or he will find someone else who
will.
Liberty, do you realize almost every question you have posted has
already been covered in previous posts and the wiki?
Kevin Winter
> A website like this only needs 1% or less of people to purchase their
> product to make it feasible to send the spam. if 20% of those people
> use okopipi, the spamvertised website owner will be dealing with a
> 20:1 ratio of opt-out "orders" to legitamate orders, requiring him to
> spend actual time sifting through and finding the valid orders. THIS
> makes it uneconomic.
A little clarity: i meant if 20% of the people receiving the spam use okopipi.
Liberty
would be Okopipi... I was the only one who tried to suggest that it
might not be legal after all... most likely I was wrong... :)
but I did get the sense from several post that we intended to use only
the designated opt-out forms... and not the order a product form...
granted that filling in missiliding information in the "buy me" form
will burden the seller... if we can get credit numbers that will fail
only upon the bank (not initial check / versign check) ... the seller
is even paying for the check and the failure (up to 20$ in some cases)
So is it agreed that using the intended opt-out form, which suprisingly
alot of spemvertizers do have, is next to useless?
Kevin Winter
> the designated opt-out forms... and not the order a product form...
this is the conversation to which i was alluding:
http://groups.google.com/group/okopipi-discuss/browse_thread/thread/dc9bda55faa995c4/c0b22abc828a0ed0?q=credit+card&rnum=2#c0b22abc828a0ed0
> granted that filling in missiliding information in the "buy me" form
> will burden the seller... if we can get credit numbers that will fail
> only upon the bank (not initial check / versign check) ... the seller
> is even paying for the check and the failure (up to 20$ in some cases)
>
> So is it agreed that using the intended opt-out form, which suprisingly
> alot of spemvertizers do have, is next to useless?
Yes, and hence we'll likely have to use their order forms, as thats
the only thing the actual humans will read.
Disclaimer: IAMSC (i am not steering committee) but this is looking
(to me at least) as the last resort to getting them to listen to us,
after asking them nicely to opt us out.
Don Z (TFG)
Which is precisely what Blue Frog did, which is why it was so effective that it scared the hell out of the spammers and prompted them to attack Blue Security.
This model (go after the spamvertisers, not the spammers) WORKS, people. Please got off the "DDoS is illegal" bit.
Even if the DDoSing claims were true, so I violated the speed limit chasing down the hit-and-run driver that ran over the child in order to get his license number. Who the hell is going to care?
Spammers and their advertisers are criminals, felony criminals. Even if you commit a misdemeanor to aid in their apprehension, it is wholly justified. But Blue Security didn't commit any misdemeanors, and neither is Okopipi--naysayers notwithstanding.
Usul
that he actually has read the FAQ : the words "spammer" and
"merchants/spamvertised sites" are melted, used as synonymes quite
often. Unit1911, that's for you I guess :-) (and for me too !).
At first Liberty was taking on my nerves, but he might eventually have
an utility : he is playing the "dumb common user", and that shows us
what we need to underline, explain better, etc.
So Liberty, what's the next matter we haven't made clear from a dumb
point of view ?
Spy der Mann
"spammer" in our website. Preferably with diagrams and figures :)
Horatio
...
> At first Liberty was taking on my nerves, but he might eventually have
> an utility : he is playing the "dumb common user", and that shows us
> what we need to underline, explain better, etc.
>
> So Liberty, what's the next matter we haven't made clear from a dumb
> point of view ?
Oh man.... Could we be any more unfriendly to those that take a
critical look at okopipi and try to make constructive comments in a
polite way? Could we condescend just a bit more to those that have a
disagreement or questions about 'what is' and 'what will be'?
Maybe we should have moderators on this forum that search out all those
who dare to question 'what is', and lock them out of this forum? That
would be a sure way to:
- prevent any critical thinking or analysis
- encourage and fortify (the egos of) those in charge because they'll
be surrounded by yes-men, only.
Is this how this forum should operate?
If that answer to that is no, then I would encourage you, Usul, to
apologize to Liberty and to mean it, and I would encourage all members
to embrace and fully understand questions and criticisms posed here.
But if the answer to that question is yes, then good luck; with those
attitudes this project will be sunk practically before it begins...
People, you need to have some members that play 'devil's advocate',
people that do question 'what is' and even why. This project needs to
encourage, not discourage people from respectfully asking the most
interrogating questions possible - that is how the frog will grow to be
its strongest - and, in my opinion, strong it must be.
What say you, Usul?
Horatio
Liberty
I have prooven to myself most thing a man might want and there a
numbered few person on this globe that will cause me to stop and
consider thier openion upon calling me dumb.
All I request is relevant answers, and contributing thoughts. I kind of
got that. The answer was that we do not intend to fill in the opt-out
form but instead to mis-use the purchase form's with false data.
(correct me if I am dumb again)
If so this clearly answer my question in this thread... I do have to
take this data to my law experts (maybe you should take it to yours)
and re-debate if this is legal... but as said this is not part of this
thread... and I will re-open the "is this legal" thread when I fill I
am ready for it.
So as far as I can see it this thread is closed (unless more opinions
which do not include any apologies or reasons for new ones are posted)
@ usul: tip for life, if I am taking on your nerves, something is
clearly out of balance... personally I allow only my family and very
close friends something as intimate as my nerves.
p.s. cool nick name muadadib.
Usul
Liberty, I would be very happy if you agreed to read the FAQ and the
project description, and pick everything up a REAL dumb user could
misunderstand. Of course, if you don't want, it's ok with me too !
(thanks for the tip, but I do the contrary and it works well too :-)
HAL9000
clearly explaining the concept of how this system is going to work
(probably).
If I get time amongst helping my father renovate and redeveloping a
client website I'll have a titu (Maori for fiddle/play/mess about) with
Visio and see if I can't storyboard a typical sequence of events.
Nothing technical just a step by step from the users point of view.
BTW. Nothing personal Liberty, I just was trying to inject some clarity
into the muddy waters of the FUD that exists around this project.
Horatio
> Horacio : don't melt the verbs "to play" and "to be". Liberty haven't.
Usul,
The phrase 'play the devil's advocate' is well known - 58,000 hits on
google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22play+the+devil%27s+advocate
I didn't invent the phrase, I just used it appropriately. I'm sorry if
it appeared confusing to you. With that digression out of the way,
what is your opinion on whether it is fruitful or detrimental to this
group when one or more people 'play the devil's advocate' in a
respectful and seemingly constructive manner?
Horatio (now a.k.a. Horacio) ;-)
Usul
common user", and that shows us what we need to underline, explain
it appeared confusing to you.
Hal9000 : Cool ! I've one question for the user you'll be : when seeing
for the first time the wiki, do you start reading the FAQ or the
project description ?
HAL9000
the project description. I blotted my copybook a few weeks by posting
something there instead of the discussions area.
To be quite frank I only looked at the FAQ in reaction to your message!
Unit1911
> I didn't invent the phrase, I just used it appropriately. I'm sorry if
> it appeared confusing to you. With that digression out of the way,
> what is your opinion on whether it is fruitful or detrimental to this
> group when one or more people 'play the devil's advocate' in a
> respectful and seemingly constructive manner?
I don't see any problem with playing devils advocate, I do it quite
often. But the fustration lies in the fact when one has been bringing
up arguments to the project then totally ignoring the facts brought
forward to counter the claim while having no real understanding of the
subject being debated. In liberty's case any factual argument has been
responded with "I'll bring that to my laywers, I suggest you do to" but
he never seems to return with a responce from these supossed laywers.
Besides why would he have laywers to look at this project in the first
place? It all seems fishy and like a ploy to get us to abandon the
project or distract us from the actual work.
The simple fact is the project will go on, whether or not some feel it
may be illegal because the majority do not. Everyone are welcome to
help us or get out of the way, but don't stand here arguing with all of
the members who do not feel it is illegal because the project will move
forward anyways.
I consider this matter closed until Liberty returns with a responce
from his laywers or someone else steps forward with legal training who
has a valid legal argument. So far the only thing like this I've seen
is a members wife who see's no illegal aspects of the plan.
Liberty
friends/colleges and it is not easy getting something done thoroughly
for free just as a favor... you certainly can not rush things or come
in demand.
As stated I just came out from a thread about Okopipi legality...
unless something comes up it is most likely legal... so lets not
re-open that debate.
But If you have lawyers friends or anyone else with any legal resource
at hand... I suggest grabbing them for a chat, like I already did.
explain to them what we intend to do, give them time and see what they
think.
Till now I/We got only a single authorised opinion from someones wife
who is a lawyer... and her verdict was that everything is Legal...
This is enough (at least for me) to stop the debating it right now...
but we should have broader confirmation as we go along.
And here is the part I like best
"...ploy to get us to abandon the project or distract us from the
actual work..."
Are you feeling manipulated? do you feel this thread is depressing you
to the point of leaving?
two possible answers:
YES: you have problems... go sort them out.
NO: Why would you assume other have problems?
In any case I ask for your forgiveness, writing such sentences must
come from some source of pain.
last, since the subject for which this thread was answered clearly and
we are no longer on it... please, let it die... other subject should be
discussed in their own threads.
In this aspect I totaly in the same page as your last paragraph...
Liberty
Unit1911
> And here is the part I like best
> "...ploy to get us to abandon the project or distract us from the
> actual work..."
> Are you feeling manipulated? do you feel this thread is depressing you
> to the point of leaving?
> two possible answers:
> YES: you have problems... go sort them out.
> NO: Why would you assume other have problems?
>
> In any case I ask for your forgiveness, writing such sentences must
> come from some source of pain.
Say what? Who said anything about being depressed? I was implying you
and a few others might be part of a FUD campaign to distract everyone
by:
1. Making someone who has not looked into it question our legality.
2. Taking up our time arguing with you instead of discussing important
matters.
wayne
> now read again my first post and repeat after me (its only fair since I
> had to repeat your line): "What prevents spammers from simply ignoring
> the opt-out?"
Nothing really prevents spammers from just ignoring the opt-out
requests. Yeah, according to the CAN-SPAM law, an "organization" has
to honor opt-out requests, but US law doesn't apply to people outside
the US, nor does it stop the spammers from constantly forming new
organizations to re-use get around the CAN-SPAM law. Granted, they
morph organizations mostly to keep ISPs and webhosters from tracking
them, avoiding problems with CAN-SPAM is just side benefit.
There are whole classes of spam that don't even use websites, such as
stock pump-and-dump schemes and political messages. (Political
messages are explicitly allowed under CAN-SPAM.)
In <e20265020606150856n1b4...@mail.gmail.com> "Kevin Winter" <therebe...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> I suppose you missed the earlier discussion on generating pseudo-valid
> CC numbers. Part of filling out the spamvertised websites is to
> submit an order. We use the entry spaces to fill in information that
> passes their data validation algorithms, but gets the message across
> to the merchant that the spam we are receiving is unwanted. Thats why
I suspect that trying to generate "pseudo-valid" CC numbers in an
"order form" would likely constitute credit-card fraud. Actually, I'm
not so sure that filling is a good idea at all. That could constitute
"abuse" and violate either the end user's ISP Terms of Service, or
anti-hacking laws.
Yeah, not having an opt-out method may be violating the CAN-SPAM act,
but two wrongs don't make a right and courts are happy to punish both
parties rather than doing an "offsetting penalties" thing like they do
in sports. People involved with Okopipi can be tracked down easily,
while spammers can't, so it could easily end up being that Okopipi
people get into legal hot water, while the spammers go unpunished.
-wayne
Kevin Winter
> I suspect that trying to generate "pseudo-valid" CC numbers in an
> "order form" would likely constitute credit-card fraud. Actually, I'm
> not so sure that filling is a good idea at all. That could constitute
> "abuse" and violate either the end user's ISP Terms of Service, or
> anti-hacking laws.
IANAL, but it's my understanding that fraud is commited when you
either A) use a credit card that does not belong to you to make
purchases not authorized by the card holder, or B) manipulating a
loophole that allows your order to be processed (sent to you) before
the credit card payment is authorized (same way leo did it in catch me
if you can, he made the cashing process take so long he was gone
before the check bounced).
If what you say was true, technically we would each be breaking the
law and defrauding someone every time we enter our credit card number
a digit off. The only difference is that our "digit off" is designed
to pass a data validation filter, but not the credit card
authorization (which is usually done in batches).
Obviously we'll have to consult with lawyers, but i think we'll be
okay as long as we don't actually use a valid credit card by accident.
~Kevin
secondwheel
immediately off-track and the original concern was never addressed.
Really folks, try to slow down a little....
Liberty wrote:
> In most cases the opt-out massage is not the main part of the web
> site... it is linked behind some "contact us" link... and contains a
> form of sorts.
>
> What prevents spammers of hosting this opt-out page on some low
> performance server... if it is goes down, no real impact on the
> business... they can bring it up a week later no harm done.
Right, so we have the choice of submitting requests to these defined
unsub pages (which can be fairly easily ignored), OR we can submit them
in the order submit page (not so easily ignored, but poss. problems:
see below).
If a site either has no available unsub page (nonexistent, or if it's
on a separate server that goes down right away) OR if they continue to
send spam even after the unsub page is used, we're pretty clearly okay
submitting unsub requests into whatever form is available.
The problematic situation I want to look at is this:
* the site has a functioning unsub page
* unsub requests to this page _are_ respected
* so it's totally CAN-SPAM compliant
* BUT we submit disruptive unsub requests with fake CC numbers to their
order form
IANAL, but that seems legally dicey to me.
Blue Security got around this by contacting the sites directly *before*
releasing scripts. CAN-SPAM compliant sites were excluded from
opt-outs.
Will we do the same?
I haven't seen this addressed directly on the FAQ, though perhaps it
has been updated since I've last read it carefully.
Cheers,
2w
Don Z (TFG)
" IANAL, but that seems legally dicey to me."
I do not see the problem. The Name, Address and other fields do not contain the name of any entity or other "valid" info--they contain the opt-out text. There is clearly no attempt to defraud, even with the use of an invalid but "passable" CC number. Even if the opt-out message was posted with a valid CC number, where would the spamvertiser ship the product? No customer = no sale, = no fraud. It would be a bit like writing, "Your products suck and I hate your company" on an order form and mailing to a company. Where's the fraud or other crime?
IANAL either, but I have been in business nearly 30 years, and I see no way in hell either scenario is illegal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "secondwheel" <secon...@gmail.com>
To: "okopipi-discuss" <okopipi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:36 PM
Subject: [okopipi-discuss] Re: What prevents spammers simply ignoring the opt-out?
>
nano
submitting tens of thousands of fake CCs in order forms. Does anyone
know a lawyer who could help us with this question?
Unit1911
> IANAL, but that seems legally dicey to me.
> Blue Security got around this by contacting the sites directly *before*
> releasing scripts. CAN-SPAM compliant sites were excluded from
> opt-outs.
Yes we will be contacting any website before any type of opt-out
campain is started. I'm not sure if this is in the FAQ but it has been
decided and should be added.
Liberty
spamvertisers?
I hope not.
because if you do... this is our (and the would be contact person)
greatest error.
spammer are not only criminals in the way the use law with regards to
mass mailing...
they are criminals in all the ways!!!
They are not the sort of person you would like to to call up and say...
"Hi, my name it Mr Niceman and I would like you to..." cause this is
the cue for him to say "I would like you to consider your health and
the health of you family" and compliment his request by sending you
mail with all your address (real physical address) names and phones of
everyone you care for...
and if you think I am paranoid and imagining things...
1. think again
2. try to contact a high ranking X-BS/BF and have them tell you some
stories.
All the proccess from chossing a site through the attack till the cease
fire should be automated / disterbuted and with no single person on the
trigger.
Liberty
nano
need to do as far as contact.
Horatio
nano wrote:
> Liberty, your posts are just ridiculous.
Nano, attacking the messenger is improper and not in anyone's best
interests, unless you're here more to try to be cool than to fight
spam.
> An anonymous e-mail is all we need to do as far as contact.
I'd like to respond technically to your thoughts (feel free to do the
same back, but I would appreciate it if you leave my probable-IQ, looks
and lineage out of it...):
Why would any spammer pay attention to what would most likely sound
like a threatening message from an ID like IHat...@hotmail.com? Or
even Oko...@hotmail.com? Even if the spammer did actually read the
mail, there is no way he would give it any credibility, imo.
H.
Kevin Winter
> Nano, attacking the messenger is improper and not in anyone's best
> interests, unless you're here more to try to be cool than to fight
> spam.
Last time i checked, nano is a member of the Steering Committee, which
makes him a Very Important Person of this project. If a cop tells you
to stop raving in public, you're gonna listen, no?
The point nano is trying to get across that most (if not all) of
liberty's posts have been not so much in the vein of constructive
criticism, so much as introducing FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt
concerning this project. Name the last post where he suggested
something helpful, as opposed to a wildly exaggerated cautionary email
couched in terms to make us think twice about even attempting this
project. I have my doubt's about Liberty's sincerity. Notice that he
has consistently claimed that in the US (i believe he stated the US)
that certain things are illegal, while at the same time sending emails
that verge on the incoherent and occasionally very bad english. There
may not be a direct correlation between bad grammar and non-american
citizenship, but i have to question the validity of his opinions.
Most of them have very little backing fact, and are based more on
opinion than anything else. May i suggest that all future posts
concerning the legality of actions reference the appropriate online
versions of said laws? I know we can find at least references to most
of the laws being discussed, and we should be able to more
constructively debate these issues with cited sources than mere
opinion.
Horatio
> On 6/17/06, Horatio <hor...@earthling.net> wrote:
> > Nano, attacking the messenger is improper and not in anyone's best
> > interests, unless you're here more to try to be cool than to fight
> > spam.
>
> Last time i checked, nano is a member of the Steering Committee, which
> makes him a Very Important Person of this project. If a cop tells you
> to stop raving in public, you're gonna listen, no?
No.
I'm going to use my brain, and if I disagree, I will do so factually,
and respectfully, as I did on this occasion.
When clergy say something that I strongly disagree with, I do the same.
But, you might ask, how could I do that when they are 'speaking for
God'? Well, they're just people, and they make mistakes sometimes too.
When I've disagreed with what a cop says or does, I also do the same.
On one such occasion when I did, the cop's sargeant came to me and
offered to file charges against the cop on my behalf - clearly the
cop's sargeant did think the cop was in the wrong, and clearly my
method of disagreeing factually and respectfully was the right choice.
I chose to not have charges filed; his sargeant's attention to the
matter was enough for me.
And it was equally the right choice in this case. I mean really - do
you agree with Bill Gates on every subject relating to computers?
(Assuming you said 'No' there...) how could you disagree with the guy
that has made more money in the computer industry than anyone? I
submit to you that Bill Gates is far more knowledgeable in what he does
than Nano is in what he is presently doing. I'll not blindly submit to
either, as you believe I should.
>
> The point nano is trying to get across that most (if not all) of
> liberty's posts have been not so much in the vein of constructive
> criticism
Liberty has made many fine posts (see the end of this post for a sample
of them). If the quality of Liberty's posts don't meet your personal
expectation, you need to get over that and get back to the business at
hand. The business at hand is far more important than each and every
contributor meeting up with your expectations, sorry.
> , so much as introducing FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt
> concerning this project.
I'm sorry, but this argument is getting so old, just like calling
someone on this forum a spammer, and so on.... If you have fear, go
take a walk and take some deep breaths and you'll feel better. If you
have uncertainty or doubt, you should look into why you do, and examine
those doubts from an analytical point of view until you resolve those
doubts. Calling someone a FUD'r on this board is the same type of
'attacking the messenger' activity that I told Nano he was doing, and
now I'm telling you too Kevin: Get past the personalities, and
concentrate on the work. Know that not all posts here will interest
you, and most assuredly some will not meet your expectations for
quality. That doesn't mean that they should be attacked. Stay focused
nonetheless; that is what will best help this project.
> Name the last post where he suggested
> something helpful, as opposed to a wildly exaggerated cautionary email
As noted above, a sample of his posts are at the bottom of this post.
> couched in terms to make us think twice about even attempting this
> project.
If you're thinking twice about attempting this project, then go ahead;
more thinking is better than less. If you're worried about respectful
'free speech' having the ability to bring down this project, then you
have little real respect for this project, imo. The term 'house of
cards' comes to mind; that is the structure that cannot stand up to
free speech. And any members here that work towards this project being
a 'house of cards' is /not/ working towards this project's success.
> I have my doubt's about Liberty's sincerity. Notice that he
> has consistently claimed that in the US (i believe he stated the US)
> that certain things are illegal, while at the same time sending emails
> that verge on the incoherent and occasionally very bad english. There
> may not be a direct correlation between bad grammar and non-american
> citizenship, but i have to question the validity of his opinions.
I could not tell what reasons you're using to doubt Liberty's
sincerity. That he might be a non-American? That his skills using the
english language are not up to your expectations at times? I won't
agree with your logic here, if indeed there is any logic in your
argument at all...
>
> Most of them have very little backing fact, and are based more on
> opinion than anything else. May i suggest that all future posts
> concerning the legality of actions reference the appropriate online
> versions of said laws? I know we can find at least references to most
> of the laws being discussed, and we should be able to more
> constructively debate these issues with cited sources than mere
> opinion.
I missed the forum rules where opinions were banned. Could you post a
link to that section? I believe that a free exchange of opinions will
fortify and make this project stronger. I know you disagree with that,
as you clearly said. So we disagree. I'm over it already.
>
> ~Kevin
> --
> Open Source, Open Mind
I agree with the first half of your sigfile.
H. (sample of Liberty posts follows):
---------------------------------------------
In the following post, Liberty, who has offered to solicit free
attorneys to offer a legal opinion about Okopipi, got slammed; he
replies here, quite respectfully again, and (for some reason) still
willing to go get this group some free legal advice:
--------------------------------------------
The "supossed laywers" (quoted misspelling) is my uncle and his
friends/colleges and it is not easy getting something done thoroughly
for free just as a favor... you certainly can not rush things or come
in demand.
As stated I just came out from a thread about Okopipi legality...
unless something comes up it is most likely legal... so lets not
re-open that debate.
But If you have lawyers friends or anyone else with any legal resource
at hand... I suggest grabbing them for a chat, like I already did.
explain to them what we intend to do, give them time and see what they
think.
Till now I/We got only a single authorised opinion from someones wife
who is a lawyer... and her verdict was that everything is Legal...
This is enough (at least for me) to stop the debating it right now...
but we should have broader confirmation as we go along.
And here is the part I like best
"...ploy to get us to abandon the project or distract us from the
actual work..."
Are you feeling manipulated? do you feel this thread is depressing you
to the point of leaving?
two possible answers:
YES: you have problems... go sort them out.
NO: Why would you assume other have problems?
In any case I ask for your forgiveness, writing such sentences must
come from some source of pain.
last, since the subject for which this thread was answered clearly and
we are no longer on it... please, let it die... other subject should be
discussed in their own threads.
In this aspect I totaly in the same page as your last paragraph...
Liberty
-------------------------------------------
In the post below, Liberty, after again being slammed, is again
gracious about it. He (or she, I guess...) tries to direct the
conversation back to relavent and contributing thoughts. He uses humor
in good taste to refer to the previous post when Usul called him
'dumb'.
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
In the post below, Liberty is concerned that this project build up a
solid base on which to launch itself; imo, a laudable goal. Even if
you disagree with Liberty's method for doing so, do you disagree with
Liberty's right to offer his opinion, again respectfully, on this
subject?
-----------------------------------------
more over BS/BF had made such a splash on the net-media pond... that
you can be sure to hear from the same media when the first successor
will rise...
it might be a good thing to create some database of people who are
really only interested in beta testing... thus giving them the peace of
mind that they will get a wake up email when the first Okopipi rays are
about to shine, no need to be invloved in the bla bla till that
moment... (personally I am interested the trip as well as the
destination).
it can be as simple as a thread where anyone who post "Me too"... but I
think a more descrete way is needed, yet not too complacated as to make
it a project on its own...
if the group has some mail or maybe the Okopipi domain has one? we can
give a link to that private / protected email address, anyone who sends
mail to it will be notified when the time comes.
Liberty
---------------------------------------
In the post below, Liberty tries to defuse and resolve what I believe
is a very sticky situation (one that I posted as potential future
trouble), and in the end says that despite some mitigating factors that
he does present quite well, there still might be some trouble in the
scenario that I presented.
This sounds to me like Liberty is actively working towards helping this
project. imo, we need more Libertys.
In short, Liberty analyzed the previous post, shook out some relavent
points, and shared them, respectfully and clearly, with this group.
---------------------------------------
As much as I can tell your scenario is possible.
There are some factors that would slow spammers.
1. spammers can only extract Okopipi members which are already in their
mailing list.
2. Hopefully devoting that bandwidth will cost the spammers a lot of
money... enough money to rethink the option of simply complaying.
3. I do hope that Okopipi will get a support from major mailing
companies such as google and yahoo... in a way that the first client to
be attacked can report it to them and prevent the onslaught from
continue.
but a side from these argument which do not really contradict your
point I see no way to stop them from doing what you had just described.
Liberty
----------------------------------
In the post below, Liberty again respectfully analyzes a previous post
and (correctly imo) presents his opinion; an opinion that in this
example below should be important to every person that wants Okopipi to
succeed.
----------------------------------
You missed Horatio point.
do what ever you want with your honeypot, and jig as much as you want.
the minute you enter your real mail into the Okopipi white list... the
spammer can filter you out as a real valid email protected by Okopipi.
and they might ,as Horatio suggest, take their revenge on you
personally and on your real mail.
targeting known Okopipi users might not be such an economic burden...
even few victims brutalized might make an impact (I.e. IRAA vs the
monumental amount of people using file sharing)
Liberty
---------------------------------
Nick Linn
take it to private. This list is for the discussion of Okopipi not
squabbles between users.
I nomiate this thread to be locked and/or deleted due to it being
blatently offtopic.
Thanks,
Nick
Kevin Winter
> This is quite innapropriate. If you have a problem with another users
> take it to private. This list is for the discussion of Okopipi not
> squabbles between users.
Done.
Liberty
@Kevin Winter: No I am not a US citizen and English is not my native
tangue, so if I am not useing speller I have tons of typo's and even if
I do some of my sentances might sound not exactly right (I will not use
speller here as well, so you might get the feeling)
@Nano: anoynimus mail or any other method which converge with my last
line "All the proccess from chossing a site through the attack till the
cease fire should be automated / disterbuted and with no single person
on the trigger." is acceptable. The previous Unit1911 post said we will
be contacting before we start opt-out that it will. No method given...
all I said is dont even think about letting a person physicly contact
anyone.
Liberty
nano
off-topic and personally attacking remarks need to stay off the groups,
and preferably, should not be anywhere at all.
Liberty, I'm glad you found the solution acceptable.
And as to whether spamvertised websites will pay attention to an
anonymous e-mail, I don't really care. It's their fault if they ignore
it. We will do what is in our power to make sure they don't, but we
can't just give them a call or something like that.