Re: Spam Update/Cyber Promo attacked

[Rick Osborne <osborne@gateway.grumman.com>]

>First of all, Wallace is a great guy and anyone who interferes with his
>freedom of speech is scum on par with C2Net.

That's your opinion, and you certainly have a right to it.  I don't want to
start the spam war all over again, suffice it to say that it's not an
opinion I happen to agree with.

>Second, if you run a cgi script in this manner, the pings are still coming
>from the web server.  You want to ping from the client that the browser's on.

Which is why I suggested the email version as well.  The arp version has
the connotation of being "morally wrong". An email version, while more
processor and bandwidth intensive, is at least no worse than what Sanford
and his crew are already doing.

Like I said, it's more of a passive agressive thing.  If I were to come
across a page that said "Click here to spam some spammers" and that's all I
had to do, why wouldn't I take 2 seconds of my time to do it?  That's
certainly less time than it takes to go through the amount of spam in my
mail each day.

And who cares if the pings/emails are coming from my site?  For the email
version I just add a header that says something to the effect of "This
email was sent to you on behalf of someone at $REMOTE_HOST" and set the
Return-Path to <root@localhost>.  At that point, how can you prove that it
was sent by your script or just by someone using your SMTPd?


_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
"This is what we heroes call the denouement, that's French for when we
finish off the supervillains ... huh? ... huh? ...  Roof pig, most
unexpected."