I have 3 email accounts with different providers which I use for quite different purposes:
My "secure" address which is only given out to trusted persons
My forum/yahoo groups, etc, account that is limited to use on bulletin boards, etc
My "I don't care what happens to it" address on hotmail which I use whenever I am required to provide (or publish) an email address for simple validation purposes and which is spammed to death regularly, but as I don't use the account for anything useful it doesn't faze me at all.
This strategy has kept my "secure" account pretty well free of spam over the years.
And as has been mentioned above, NEVER open or reply to any suspect message. Simply delete them upon receipt.
AIK.. In reply to your list..
I agree that my 'proposal' was not fully reasoned and detailed - it was not meant to be.. That kind of detail takes time and in-depth knowledge, and doesnt come free!
But I think it was more rational than some of the entries on the defeatist biased irrational list you present .. For example:
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
"Unacceptable" is about as meaningfull and justified as the word "suck"
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
"should not be" Why not ? Who decides what "should" and "should not" be?
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
In the opinion of the person/s compling this juvenile list - of what importance is this persons opinion ? Of no more importance or validity than my opinion!
( x ) Sending email should be free
Again, I could say all medical treatment should be free - so what? It my opinion and different from republican or tory opinion. If I was to make a list about (for example) social services / benefits, I would be laughed at for saying something like "Food, housing and medical care should be free" - unless I was to expound the ideas and end up creating a work similar to the communist manefesto.
All this list is, is advocacy for internet anarchy - fine if a REAL argument for anarchy is presented, but juvenile because much of it has absolutely no substance.
All this list does, is what its intended to do - To make it APPEAR like nothing can be done about the problem, and to therebye stifle any exploration or discussion - Effectively, the intent is to convey hopelessness, and silence those who dare speak out against corruption and incompetence.
IMO, Freedom and irresponsibility are not synonyms.
I think the primary purpose of that list is humor as can be seen in some of the list items, it's not written to be taken very seriously or to present arguments in detail.
But anyway, I do agree with the gist of that list, and I do believe that there is no effective way to solve the problem of spam, or at least there is no solution that is not worse than the problem itself.
The idea of the Internet is that it is a decentralized worldwide network. I can send an email from anywhere, in fact it's possible to send an email from a place where you are not located physically (I'm in Spain but I could send an email from a Russian server). The fact that the protocols are open, that anyone can have an email server, that you don't need permission to send a message wherever you want, and that you can be anonymous, are part of the reasons why Internet is such a good invention.
Yes, technically you could create an alternative Internet where your country must join and transpose some international anti-spam regulations in order to be connected, then you have to identify yourself when you connect and tie your email addresses to your identity, and pay taxes for sending email. Is that what we want? Well, it's not what I want, for sure. I'd rather get spam in my inbox (which is a minor nuisance) rather than having governments fiddling into how I use my internet connection and spying on my email traffic, and having oppressive governments with the ability to stop email altogether.
"I'd rather get spam in my inbox (which is a minor nuisance) rather than having governments fiddling into how I use my internet connection and spying on my email traffic, and having oppressive governments with the ability to stop email altogether."
I'm all for anonymity and freedom, but much more than minor nuisances are harming innocent people on the web. Some of the malware out there is quite sophisticated and tenacious, and is designed primarily to steal personal information for financial gain. We rely on the internet and email more and more in our daily lives, it seems crazy to allow this electronic mugging to continue.
A=6, B=12, C=18, D=24, E=30, F=36, etc.
Computer = 666
Perfection = 666
Adding all the letter values in either of these two words may seem pointless but?
Computer perfection is total control, most likely that device you hold in your hand and bring to your forehead to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world instantaneously. All the features it has today like tracking one another, watching with cameras, used for currency, etc. may seem entertaining now but for how long. Give the government more control of your life and surrender your arms. It will be for your own safety as going cashless will eliminate the trafficking of people and drugs which is destroying today's society. Social media will make us all one big happy family.
You got email problems?
Employing agencies that are already in place to go after those doing harm makes sense to me. If someone steals your PC you call the cops. If someone plants a bug in it and steals your credit card info, bank login, etc. or intentionally cripples it to the point where you can't use it, why is the modern response to just throw up our hands and pay a tech $300 to look at it and (maybe) fix it?
"I'd rather get spam in my inbox (which is a minor nuisance) rather than having governments fiddling into how I use my internet connection and spying on my email traffic"
What you have NOW is the worst of both worlds..
Governments (and other institutions) already have the power ("legally" or "illegally") to "fiddle into how you use your internet connection" - And if you think your emails are private, LOL, think again! - You think that you can be anonomous? think again!
The 'ordinary' person has no protection from intrusion into their internet affairs - if any large entity wanted to 'bug' what you are doing, they could and will. It is only the unimportance (to these entities) of your internet activities and the cost of monitoring you which gives you 'privacy' and 'anonimity'.. As soon as your activities become "important" to them, you will lose both.
And the sad fact is that these agencies (in the main) are not interested in curtailing the activities of criminals - they are interested in those they percieve as THEIR "enemies".. All the talk about "keeping the internet free" is nothing more than a smokescreen - It isnt "free" it isnt "private" and it isnt "safe".. It is an environment in which gangs of well armed thugs roam without restriction, and the few sherrifs are working for corrupt tycoons.
666 again! LOL
Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666. (Rev.13:18)
It is the "Number of a man" Note that!
And this whole load of 666 crap comes from one obscure verse in the "Revelation of John" which is the ravings of a delusional psychotic.
Sad how something so uttely farcical can have taken on such importance, and that people actually waste time trying to make words, licence plates, dates, creeds, countries, inanimate objects etc fit into the number 666..
If one wants to, you can make ANYTHING equate to 666 - just change tha value of the letters or attributes of what you want to 'fit' until it fits!
"I made no mention of anything religious and you are quoting scriptures?"
So, if the 666 you are talking about doesnt come from "scriptures" where did it come from? I would love to know the other source of this nonsense!
If one is open-minded, and wants to see if there is any truth in something which is widely declared, a good starting point is to look at the actual origins of what is being declared - This is all I have done.. If there is any truth in the 666 hype (and I dont believe there is) it needs to be taken in the context of its source.. This source, as far as I can see, is ONLY the one statement in Revelation - And it is clearly stated there that this is the "number of a man" - So any other "counting" related to anything other than "a man" is bogus.
Oh, you never mentioned religion - neither did I ! ;-) If "quoting scripture" implies that I am being "religious" (or anti-religios) I am sorry for the misunderstanding - I would not have quoted it if it had not been THE ONLY ORIGINAL source of the 666 hype that I have been able to find!
"what about 777 in Las Vegas" - Your right, I know nothing about that.. Something from the book of Moron perhaps? ;-)