Avaaz in "grave danger" due to GMail spam filters
OHAI, I happen to be on Avaaz's info distribution list, and I got an e-mail lately that Avaaz is in "grave danger" as GMail will now filter mailings like that out to a separate folder for similar spam-ish (yet not spam per se) mailings. So what they're asking people to do is to reply directly to that e-mail, so that GMail will note that Avaaz's mailings are not to be messed around with. Instead of telling people, you know, to decentralise and use other, smaller providers. I facepalmed so hard I could cry. It's Stockholm Syndrome if I ever saw one. "GMail fucks us in the arse, so let's ask them politely to use some lubricant". My question is: does *anybody* on this list have some kind of contact within Avaaz? I'd *love* to talk to them about it. It's simply disingenuous to do such a campaign and *not* at least signal "oh and by the way, had we all been still using different, dispersed, decentralised e-mail services we wouldn't get even close to having this problem". -- Pozdr rysiek
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:48:58PM +0200, rysiek wrote:
OHAI,
I happen to be on Avaaz's info distribution list, and I got an e-mail lately that Avaaz is in "grave danger" as GMail will now filter mailings like that out to a separate folder for similar spam-ish (yet not spam per se) mailings.
So what they're asking people to do is to reply directly to that e-mail, so that GMail will note that Avaaz's mailings are not to be messed around with.
Instead of telling people, you know, to decentralise and use other, smaller providers.
I facepalmed so hard I could cry. It's Stockholm Syndrome if I ever saw one. "GMail fucks us in the arse, so let's ask them politely to use some lubricant".
My question is: does *anybody* on this list have some kind of contact within Avaaz? I'd *love* to talk to them about it. It's simply disingenuous to do such a campaign and *not* at least signal "oh and by the way, had we all been still using different, dispersed, decentralised e-mail services we wouldn't get even close to having this problem".
-- Pozdr rysiek
Gmail's new e-mail sorting system divides mail into three categories by default - "primary", "social", and "promotions". The user can train the filter by dragging and dropping and by creating new categories. A quick look at avaaz.org's SPF record shows that they are using Sendgrid, I doubt they will be having difficulties with deliverability. -- staticsafe O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post. Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on.
That's why he said spam-ish, not spam. Regardless it will make them be viewed much less. I think they're just "taking eggs for their money". They know it's a lot to ask from people to switch away from gmail. They love their arsefuckings. They might not have thought about the "big ridiculously high, then concede to something high"-tactic. "Please, people, stop using gmail". Everyone: "Noo! We love Gmail!". "Then at least send an e-mail back to fix gmail". Everyone: "That sounds reasonable." instead of "please fix gmail". Everyone "naah too much effort".
Dnia poniedziałek, 19 sierpnia 2013 13:10:05 Lodewijk andré de la porte pisze:
That's why he said spam-ish, not spam.
Regardless it will make them be viewed much less. I think they're just "taking eggs for their money". They know it's a lot to ask from people to switch away from gmail. They love their arsefuckings.
They might not have thought about the "big ridiculously high, then concede to something high"-tactic. "Please, people, stop using gmail". Everyone: "Noo! We love Gmail!". "Then at least send an e-mail back to fix gmail". Everyone: "That sounds reasonable." instead of "please fix gmail". Everyone "naah too much effort".
This. Also, it wouldn't cost them a dime to add a sentence or two explaining why centralisation is the problem and how using other e-mail providers can help. -- Pozdr rysiek
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:26:36PM +0200, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 19 sierpnia 2013 13:10:05 Lodewijk andré de la porte pisze:
That's why he said spam-ish, not spam.
Regardless it will make them be viewed much less. I think they're just "taking eggs for their money". They know it's a lot to ask from people to switch away from gmail. They love their arsefuckings.
They might not have thought about the "big ridiculously high, then concede to something high"-tactic. "Please, people, stop using gmail". Everyone: "Noo! We love Gmail!". "Then at least send an e-mail back to fix gmail". Everyone: "That sounds reasonable." instead of "please fix gmail". Everyone "naah too much effort".
This. Also, it wouldn't cost them a dime to add a sentence or two explaining why centralisation is the problem and how using other e-mail providers can help.
-- Pozdr rysiek
Sure, lets tell them to move their e-mail from Gmail....to where? To another big mail provider (whats the point then?). Lavabit, Silent Circle, Hushmail, Tormail? Nope. Self host their own e-mail? Hah. Most people don't have the resources and/or the ability to do something like that. There is also the matter of trust, why should I trust $MAILHOST over Google? What is the solution then? I hope I got my point across. -- staticsafe O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post. Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on.
On 08/19/2013 10:55 AM, staticsafe wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:26:36PM +0200, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 19 sierpnia 2013 13:10:05 Lodewijk andré de la porte pisze:
That's why he said spam-ish, not spam.
Regardless it will make them be viewed much less. I think they're just "taking eggs for their money". They know it's a lot to ask from people to switch away from gmail. They love their arsefuckings.
They might not have thought about the "big ridiculously high, then concede to something high"-tactic. "Please, people, stop using gmail". Everyone: "Noo! We love Gmail!". "Then at least send an e-mail back to fix gmail". Everyone: "That sounds reasonable." instead of "please fix gmail". Everyone "naah too much effort".
This. Also, it wouldn't cost them a dime to add a sentence or two explaining why centralisation is the problem and how using other e-mail providers can help.
-- Pozdr rysiek
Sure, lets tell them to move their e-mail from Gmail....to where? To another big mail provider (whats the point then?). Lavabit, Silent Circle, Hushmail, Tormail? Nope. Self host their own e-mail? Hah. Most people don't have the resources and/or the ability to do something like that.
There is also the matter of trust, why should I trust $MAILHOST over Google?
What is the solution then?
I hope I got my point across.
The solution *could* be to host their own mail server if it were made easy enough for them. I'm thinking something like a Raspberry Pi with very well designed web UI for simple configuration and management. Include a nice webmail client and even most non-techies could probably do this.
2013/8/19 CryptoFreak <cryptofreak@cpunk.us>
The solution *could* be to host their own mail server if it were made easy enough for them. I'm thinking something like a Raspberry Pi with very well designed web UI for simple configuration and management. Include a nice webmail client and even most non-techies could probably do this.
~30 bucks, energy, outages, slower, less functions, maybe problems. Good luck selling that.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:37:33PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2013/8/19 CryptoFreak <cryptofreak@cpunk.us>
The solution *could* be to host their own mail server if it were made easy enough for them. I'm thinking something like a Raspberry Pi with very well designed web UI for simple configuration and management. Include a nice webmail client and even most non-techies could probably do this.
~30 bucks, energy, outages, slower, less functions, maybe problems. Good luck selling that.
The biggest problem being spam. We need to educate typical e-mail users about e-mail hygiene and spam fighting. -- staticsafe O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post. Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM, staticsafe <me@staticsafe.ca> wrote:
The biggest problem being spam. We need to educate typical e-mail users about e-mail hygiene and spam fighting.
Over the past two decades, efforts to educate the average user have had limited success at best. I think it's time to give up on educating them and simply drive them off the internet. We can frame them for various crimes, loot their bank accounts or credit cards so they're too poor to get online, or get them kicked off of their ISPs. Conveniently, the people who are too dumb to be allowed online are the very same people who will be easy to attack online. Why, yes, I did major in sophistry in college. Why do you ask? -- Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. -- Arnaud-Amaury, 1209
Dnia poniedziałek, 19 sierpnia 2013 13:04:49 Steve Furlong pisze:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM, staticsafe <me@staticsafe.ca> wrote:
The biggest problem being spam. We need to educate typical e-mail users about e-mail hygiene and spam fighting.
Over the past two decades, efforts to educate the average user have had limited success at best. I think it's time to give up on educating them and simply drive them off the internet. We can frame them for various crimes, loot their bank accounts or credit cards so they're too poor to get online, or get them kicked off of their ISPs. Conveniently, the people who are too dumb to be allowed online are the very same people who will be easy to attack online.
Why, yes, I did major in sophistry in college. Why do you ask?
Philosophy major here, and you are a gentleman and a scholar. For a while now I have been pondering the idea of "fuck that, can't save the world, just let proles get all the shit they are bound to get, and let us techie kind just dance between the raindrops as we know how". So far the realisation that the same can be pondered from (for example) a medical professional's perspective (i.e. "fuck that, the proles will never learn, I'll just wash my hands and not bother myself with their well-being"), and that in that case I would be the prole, was enough to keep me on my altruistic path. Not to mention that the more and better people are educated, the better we're all off (as it's harder for politicos to paint us techies/hackers as criminals). Using the stated tactic against politicos (OHAI, Mr Censormoron...) would be something I am sure some of the less peacefully inclined could indeed find interesting, I guess. *cough* -- Pozdr rysiek
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:15:31PM +0200, Moon Jones wrote:
On 19.08.2013 18:44, staticsafe wrote:
The biggest problem being spam. We need to educate typical e-mail users about e-mail hygiene and spam fighting.
What do you mean by «e-mail hygiene» and «spam fighting»?
E-mail hygiene: - Using aliases for every company you deal with, or using recipient delimiters like "+" so it is easier to find out which company sold you out. - Exercise more caution when handing out your "primary" address - Avoid services that like to spam your addressbook (see: LinkedIn etc.) Spam fighting: - Using DNSBLs to cut down on the crap - Training spamassassin's DB with ham and spam. - Enact rate limiting policies so that a compromised account can only do limited amount of damage. -- staticsafe O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post. Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on.
On 20.08.2013 14:43, staticsafe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:15:31PM +0200, Moon Jones wrote:
On 19.08.2013 18:44, staticsafe wrote:
The biggest problem being spam. We need to educate typical e-mail users about e-mail hygiene and spam fighting.
What do you mean by «e-mail hygiene» and «spam fighting»?
E-mail hygiene: - Using aliases for every company you deal with, or using recipient delimiters like "+" so it is easier to find out which company sold you out. - Exercise more caution when handing out your "primary" address - Avoid services that like to spam your addressbook (see: LinkedIn etc.)
Spam fighting: - Using DNSBLs to cut down on the crap - Training spamassassin's DB with ham and spam. - Enact rate limiting policies so that a compromised account can only do limited amount of damage.
Oops. My bad. Than what do you mean by «typical e-mail user»?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:15:31PM +0200, Moon Jones wrote:
On 20.08.2013 14:43, staticsafe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:15:31PM +0200, Moon Jones wrote:
On 19.08.2013 18:44, staticsafe wrote:
The biggest problem being spam. We need to educate typical e-mail users about e-mail hygiene and spam fighting.
What do you mean by «e-mail hygiene» and «spam fighting»?
E-mail hygiene: - Using aliases for every company you deal with, or using recipient delimiters like "+" so it is easier to find out which company sold you out. - Exercise more caution when handing out your "primary" address - Avoid services that like to spam your addressbook (see: LinkedIn etc.)
Spam fighting: - Using DNSBLs to cut down on the crap - Training spamassassin's DB with ham and spam. - Enact rate limiting policies so that a compromised account can only do limited amount of damage.
Oops. My bad.
Than what do you mean by «typical e-mail user»?
Someone who primarily uses webmail and big e-mail service providers. Probably doesn't even /care/ about e-mail, e-mail isn't cool after all. ;) -- staticsafe O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post. Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on.
On 21.08.2013 11:36, staticsafe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:15:31PM +0200, Moon Jones wrote:
On 20.08.2013 14:43, staticsafe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:15:31PM +0200, Moon Jones wrote:
On 19.08.2013 18:44, staticsafe wrote:
The biggest problem being spam. We need to educate typical e-mail users about e-mail hygiene and spam fighting.
What do you mean by «e-mail hygiene» and «spam fighting»?
E-mail hygiene: - Using aliases for every company you deal with, or using recipient delimiters like "+" so it is easier to find out which company sold you out. - Exercise more caution when handing out your "primary" address - Avoid services that like to spam your addressbook (see: LinkedIn etc.)
Spam fighting: - Using DNSBLs to cut down on the crap - Training spamassassin's DB with ham and spam. - Enact rate limiting policies so that a compromised account can only do limited amount of damage.
Oops. My bad.
Than what do you mean by «typical e-mail user»?
Someone who primarily uses webmail and big e-mail service providers. Probably doesn't even /care/ about e-mail, e-mail isn't cool after all. ;)
Yea, but aren't they impossible for that type of typical email user? Aliases for every company? Most providers don't offer aliases. Or they do it Yahoo style with one or two options. + addressing it's also badly supported. Thus the primary address is the only one. Having a whole subdomain is not available from the major services, not if it's an @work address. And it's not foolproof as I started noticing spam for generated addresses (say RandomString@user.domain.com) How could one find out the spammy services other than by experience. This is precisely how I found out about linked in. And that's just because there's no other way to reach that data. And bugmenot was crippled before taking off. DNSBL? I don't have a plugin for that in Thunderbird. And I can control what the provider does. Sure, most go for spamassassin as it leads to less false positives than a bayesian filter, but there's nothing the user can do. In the end, what one can do to teach people of «e-mail hygiene» and «spam fighting»?
On 19.08.2013 18:32, CryptoFreak wrote:
On 08/19/2013 10:55 AM, staticsafe wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:26:36PM +0200, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 19 sierpnia 2013 13:10:05 Lodewijk andré de la porte pisze:
That's why he said spam-ish, not spam.
Regardless it will make them be viewed much less. I think they're just "taking eggs for their money". They know it's a lot to ask from people to switch away from gmail. They love their arsefuckings.
They might not have thought about the "big ridiculously high, then concede to something high"-tactic. "Please, people, stop using gmail". Everyone: "Noo! We love Gmail!". "Then at least send an e-mail back to fix gmail". Everyone: "That sounds reasonable." instead of "please fix gmail". Everyone "naah too much effort".
This. Also, it wouldn't cost them a dime to add a sentence or two explaining why centralisation is the problem and how using other e-mail providers can help.
-- Pozdr rysiek
Sure, lets tell them to move their e-mail from Gmail....to where? To another big mail provider (whats the point then?). Lavabit, Silent Circle, Hushmail, Tormail? Nope. Self host their own e-mail? Hah. Most people don't have the resources and/or the ability to do something like that.
There is also the matter of trust, why should I trust $MAILHOST over Google?
What is the solution then?
I hope I got my point across.
The solution *could* be to host their own mail server if it were made easy enough for them. I'm thinking something like a Raspberry Pi with very well designed web UI for simple configuration and management. Include a nice webmail client and even most non-techies could probably do this.
i don't quite get why everyone purportedly loves webmail clients so much?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:14:32PM +0200, Alexander R. Krug wrote:
i don't quite get why everyone purportedly loves webmail clients so much?
Ease of access as opposed to setting up a client like Thunderbird/Outlook/mutt etc. -- staticsafe O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post. Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on.
i don't quite get why everyone purportedly loves webmail clients so much?
Ease of access as opposed to setting up a client like Thunderbird/Outlook/mutt etc.
I can tell you gmail's interface completely sucks now. Every change they make is a whole new world of ruin. Webmail dates back to providers not offering imap/submission, no small part because it's harder to force feed ads down those interface channels than with captive eyeballs in webmail. Many other reasons but most of them are the provider choosing/forcing webmail, not the user. Never forget the AOL captive UI.
I put text in a box. I click a button. That text is transported to people across the globe. Fucking people need to get over some UI shit. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:06 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
i don't quite get why everyone purportedly loves webmail clients so much?
Ease of access as opposed to setting up a client like Thunderbird/Outlook/mutt etc.
I can tell you gmail's interface completely sucks now. Every change they make is a whole new world of ruin.
Webmail dates back to providers not offering imap/submission, no small part because it's harder to force feed ads down those interface channels than with captive eyeballs in webmail. Many other reasons but most of them are the provider choosing/forcing webmail, not the user. Never forget the AOL captive UI.
-- "On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage, 19th century English mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer who originated the concept of a programmable computer.
2013/8/19 alex wright <wrightalexw@gmail.com>
I put text in a box. I click a button. That text is transported to people across the globe. Fucking people need to get over some UI shit.
I preferred it when I could do: THIS With only 1 button click. And that it doesn't appear like '>' And that my inbox state is the same on my windows box, linux box, vm's, laptop, school/uni/office computer, grandmother's weird laptop, ancient Mac boxes and my phone. Hasn't been bad not having a single outage since forever either. I tried setting up a mail_server_ once. That was fun. Haha. I'm even likely to get spamfiltered when I send something. Great! So, do I want to deal with the idiots at my ISP? Nah. Do I want to deal with Google, which offer imap, pop3, whatever and webmail and also everything I could wish for? Kinda! I think we need to have an alternative to e-mail that takes the bullocks out of it, and makes it properly distributed somehow. And then somehow migrate everyone. Maybe make some servers-that-are-also-bridges-to-the-evil-world-of-email. If anybody is ever interested in the software I propose, e-mail me and we can work on it. (the irony of discussing alternatives to e-mail over e-mail) And regarding blackhatting all nooblet users, yeah I kinda think that's actually a fairly legitimate argument. If only things went bad all the time people would care more about security. Simplistic worldviews. If only they were ever real.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl>wrote:
And regarding blackhatting all nooblet users, yeah I kinda think that's actually a fairly legitimate argument. If only things went bad all the time people would care more about security. Simplistic worldviews. If only they were ever real.
To be clear, I was joking, earlier. Well, mostly. Aside from that, you're right about just about all of your points. It's fun, running your own mail server and being blacklisted -- more accurately, not whitelisted -- and having outgoing mail dropped silently. Or connecting to my home mail server from a client site. "Trying to connect", that is, because the client's firewall blocks everything not specifically allowed. Gmail is allowed. Steves-home-server is not. And so on. I just go with gmail for most things despite the philosophical and technical problems. I'll use methods other than email for anything sensitive, or point people at my own server if needed, or worst case encrypt the email. (That's a worst case because email encryption seems to be beyond the ability of 90% of everyone. I still haven't figured out whether that means that email encryption is too difficult to set up and use or it means that most everyone is mostly too stupid.) -- Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. -- Arnaud-Amaury, 1209
2013/8/20 Steve Furlong <demonfighter@gmail.com>
that email encryption is too difficult to set up and use or it means that most everyone is mostly too stupid.
The tools are just pretty damn stupid. I also hate it when the tools (implicitly) tell the user "I'm about to do something complicated" or "okay, now I'm performing magic". I understand it was hard for you to make a GUI, don't make it hard for me to use. Please. I just wanna feel like I'm in a sea of butterflies. And I want to adjust the butterflies if they don't feel nice (iow: give me settings if I want them, else I just want to do what I came for and don't complain to me about stuff I barely know. Or in my case I actually know, but I know why users wouldn't ever get it. And for me it's annoying too. Do I want a low grade of security? No. Do we (the dev and I) know what's high and what's low grade? Yes. So why didn't the dev default to choosing the secure option? Speed? Seriously? Wtf?)
On 08/19/2013 03:54 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
. I still haven't figured out whether that means that email encryption is too difficult to set up and use or it means that most everyone is mostly too stupid.
Matt Blaze posted a tweet that's appropos yesterday: "anyone who thinks users who misunderstand technology don't "deserve" privacy doesn't "deserve" to be a security engineer." Eric
On 20 Aug 2013, at 01:01, Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com> wrote:
On 08/19/2013 03:54 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
. I still haven't figured out whether that means that email encryption is too difficult to set up and use or it means that most everyone is mostly too stupid.
Matt Blaze posted a tweet that's appropos yesterday:
"anyone who thinks users who misunderstand technology don't "deserve" privacy doesn't "deserve" to be a security engineer."
[I guess you're jokign Steve, but I'll kinda bite :)] (At the risk of being flamed…actually, fuck it..) He is damn fucking right. He posted the following a few minutes before: "Small silver lining in NSA revelations: hardly anyone's carping that those who can't figure out crypto apps don't "deserve" privacy anymore." Users are not idiots - they do not focus on this because it is hard. If* there is stupidity, it's the security engineers who develop tools that people can't use. Security people need to understand their ultimate goal is to get tools they build (and build damn well for the most part) into the hands of people, real people. I know this is The majority of people (Yes! None crypto-technology focused people too!) don't see crypto as a goal - they see using their software as a tool to task to succeeding their goal - sending the e-mail, receiving the SMS. Security and crypto should be by default. Steve, to start your reading: http://hornbeam.cs.ucl.ac.uk/hcs/people/documents/Angela%20Publications/1999... http://www.gaudior.net/alma/MakingSecurityUsable.pdf http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tygar/papers/Why_Johnny_Cant_Encrypt/OReilly.pdf include http://www.computer.org/portal/web/computingnow/securityandprivacy If there is anything positive to come out of all this it's two things: non-security peopel realising those "nerds" can help, and security grasping the realisation that they need people too. Talk to people. Find out what it is they need to accomplish and help them do it securely and privately. You'd be amazed how much it'll do. Bernard * Not something that I think will contribute to the overall conversation. -------------------------------------- Bernard / bluboxthief / ei8fdb IO91XM / www.ei8fdb.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2013 06:54 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
everyone. I still haven't figured out whether that means that email encryption is too difficult to set up and use or it means that most everyone is mostly too stupid.)
I don't know, either. I do know that the number of people who think that two mouseclicks to start the Tor Browser Bundle "is too hard to do," (yes, people say this) is stupidly high. - -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS] Developer, Project Byzantium: http://project-byzantium.org/ PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1 WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ Meeble! Meeble meeble meeble! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlIU63IACgkQO9j/K4B7F8F60wCgj8qfALDzuxxyRbUEtn5sfqnV bBAAoLOLr37Q5G1rd9d7yV3EdykHxPYJ =7n8v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2013 12:32 PM, CryptoFreak wrote:
The solution *could* be to host their own mail server if it were made easy enough for them. I'm thinking something like a Raspberry Pi with very well designed web UI for simple configuration and management. Include a nice webmail client and even most non-techies could probably do this.
That is pretty much what Freedombox wants to do. Whether or not it'll actually catch on... I know what I think will happen, so let's open the floor for opinions from people who've slept more than four hours in the past two days. - -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS] Developer, Project Byzantium: http://project-byzantium.org/ PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1 WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ Meeble! Meeble meeble meeble! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlIU6pYACgkQO9j/K4B7F8HwOACffl7EwwJcXfoOZxjHFWQ+6LRZ oqEAoIVCguoz4muxeB6cvksMsoVZJvri =HqmU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 08/19/2013 12:32 PM, CryptoFreak wrote:
The solution *could* be to host their own mail server if it were made easy enough for them. I'm thinking something like a Raspberry Pi with very well designed web UI for simple configuration and management. Include a nice webmail client and even most non-techies could probably do this.
One additional problem: almost no email providers will accept incoming email from dynamic IP addresses, and, unless you pay your ISP $$$, most people can't get a static IP address. Someone else already mentioned uptime as an issue.
Dnia wtorek, 20 sierpnia 2013 14:18:42 Moon Jones pisze:
On 18.08.2013 23:48, rysiek wrote:
I facepalmed so hard I could cry. It's Stockholm Syndrome if I ever saw one. "GMail fucks us in the arse, so let's ask them politely to use some lubricant".
HOW does «GMail fucks us in the arse»? Please expand.
By introducing policies that are disruptive to legitimate activities. Why they are disruptive? Because GMail is being used by a huge part of e-mail users. I am not assuming malice on Google's part, at least not in this particular context. But the real problem here is not that the policy is being introduced, it's that of centralisation and overly broad de facto control Google has over (in this case) e-mail communication. Had such a centralisation not occured, there would be no serious problem. One of the providers introduces such policies? Fine, whatever, they have a few percent of users at the most, we can live with that. And users can switch, no problemo. However, with GMail having such a huge slice of the pie, they can literally make or break organisations like Avaaz. And the right way to deal with that is at least telling the users "look, the problem is related to centralisation, considering moving to a different mail provider would be a good idea". Instead, what we get is "please, dear users, play according to rules set by this behemoth that can do with e-mail whatever the hell it wants". Hence my (overly ribald for some, as it turns out) metaphor. -- Pozdr rysiek
On 20.08.2013 15:32, rysiek wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 20 sierpnia 2013 14:18:42 Moon Jones pisze:
On 18.08.2013 23:48, rysiek wrote:
I facepalmed so hard I could cry. It's Stockholm Syndrome if I ever saw one. "GMail fucks us in the arse, so let's ask them politely to use some lubricant".
HOW does «GMail fucks us in the arse»? Please expand.
By introducing policies that are disruptive to legitimate activities. Why they are disruptive? Because GMail is being used by a huge part of e-mail users.
What do you mean by «legitimate»? And second what do you mean by «legitimate activities»?
I am not assuming malice on Google's part, at least not in this particular context. [...]
My bad. For me English is a second language. But «fucks us in the arse» implies a deliberate act. I see your domain is from Poland, which is quite a backward country when it comes to anything people do, yet a pope disaproves. Meaning anal sex, heterosexual, homosexual or plain masturbation is a very very bad thing to do. I might be wrong, but in this context «GMail fucks us in the arse» implies at least malice. Yet now you write «I am not assuming malice on Google's part». Help me understand.
Had such a centralisation not occured, there would be no serious problem. One of the providers introduces such policies? Fine, whatever, they have a few percent of users at the most, we can live with that. And users can switch, no problemo.
How can anybody draw the line? It's fine as long as they are under an arbitrary value set by WHOM, but it's wrong after that?
However, with GMail having such a huge slice of the pie, they can literally make or break organisations like Avaaz.
Than they should break Avaaz. If one company depends so much on another, than you can call the first one a parasyte. If it's existence depends on Google, than they should ask nicely and maybe forward a nice sum of money. Or they have quite some nerve to try to impose rules from the position of parasyte. Hopefuly for you their niche might be filled afterwards by a company that can stand on its own.
And the right way to deal with that is at least telling the users "look, the problem is related to centralisation, considering moving to a different mail provider would be a good idea".
Don't you think that is for the people to decide?
Instead, what we get is "please, dear users, play according to rules set by this behemoth that can do with e-mail whatever the hell it wants". Hence my (overly ribald for some, as it turns out) metaphor.
Because they way you expressed it, as I have no idea what Avaaz is or does, they are a puny corporation living from Google's leftovers. Meaning Google does a good thing for their users.
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 23:08 +0200, Moon Jones wrote:
Than they should break Avaaz.
If one company depends so much on another, than you can call the first one a parasyte. If it's existence depends on Google, than they should ask nicely and maybe forward a nice sum of money. Or they have quite some nerve to try to impose rules from the position of parasyte.
Hopefuly for you their niche might be filled afterwards by a company that can stand on its own.
Avaaz depends on Google delivering all mail sent to the user to the user. Possibly modulo unsolicited or "spam" mail. In a similar sense, Google could break this list, by censoring it on Gmail. Should it do that? Any infrastructure provider can break any company or organization that uses its infrastructure. But we expect infrastructure to be fair. FYI, Avaaz is a liberal activist group. They send people who sign up with them various petitions to sign or campaigns to donate to. If their emails are shunted into a "bulk mailings" folder, then they'll be effectively crippled. -- Sent from Ubuntu
I realised that my last few hours were in defence of Google. I'm not. I'm just against the vocal minority forcing some third party to do something just because it feels right to that minority. So the talk is one based on principle. On 20.08.2013 23:34, Ted Smith wrote:
Avaaz depends on Google delivering all mail sent to the user to the user. Possibly modulo unsolicited or "spam" mail.
I used to have a Gmail account, a separate Youtube account and yet another for Picasa. They are all gone. And I can say it was qick and clean. Something I can't say even for sites perceived as good such as Ubuntu Forums. But most webmail providers give some options. Such as do not make spam out of addresses that are in Contacts. Even those who don't offer this option explicitly, make malware links available far easier for people that I have in Contacts. One can also make sorting rules. A mail failing this most probably is spam. Even if the receiver doesn't feel that.
In a similar sense, Google could break this list, by censoring it on Gmail. Should it do that?
Now that is something quite different. Do you feel it's about the same? How come?
Any infrastructure provider can break any company or organization that uses its infrastructure. But we expect infrastructure to be fair.
Yes. Of course. You see, I might be very upset with the contract I am given to sign by the power company. They [the company] say clauses are non negotiable, even if I feel they [the clauses] are abusive. My alternatives are to move in a different country or use solar panels and light the room with candles. Although very romantic in this eco concept, that might turn very expensive. So I feel having access to power is very important. And I am left with filing with the consumer protection agencies hoping enough people are bothered by those clauses. On the other hand I can use Google or I can search a provider in India. I can use Vmail.me which is in France even if the name says Montenegro, and I can try Riseup which swear they won't give data, although the law specified they have to obey. And I do. I have accounts with all of them. In other words people stay with gmail because they like the server and don't care about what has been written in every newspaper in the so called Western world. It's not for me to decide for them, or I'd become some sort of Stalin. Today I rule what Google should do, tomorrow I am going to tell you what you should do.
FYI, Avaaz is a liberal activist group. They send people who sign up with them various petitions to sign or campaigns to donate to. If their emails are shunted into a "bulk mailings" folder, then they'll be effectively crippled.
I didn't know that. Thank you for the information. And yes, to me it sounds like a good idea what Google is said to be doing. Although I have my doubts Google targets anyone in particular. Finding a good site, reading about a good cause and getting involved seems like the thing to do. Bleeding people out of microsums that seem harmless on a huge scale usually helps the few full time employees and little more.
OHAI, Dnia wtorek, 20 sierpnia 2013 23:08:15 Moon Jones pisze:
On 20.08.2013 15:32, rysiek wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 20 sierpnia 2013 14:18:42 Moon Jones pisze:
On 18.08.2013 23:48, rysiek wrote:
I facepalmed so hard I could cry. It's Stockholm Syndrome if I ever saw one. "GMail fucks us in the arse, so let's ask them politely to use some lubricant".
HOW does «GMail fucks us in the arse»? Please expand.
By introducing policies that are disruptive to legitimate activities. Why they are disruptive? Because GMail is being used by a huge part of e-mail users.
What do you mean by «legitimate»? And second what do you mean by «legitimate activities»?
Not sure if troll, but oh-kay... I mean "I have subscribed to their list; this list provides clearly marked and functional way of unsubscribing; thus, mail from this source is considered legitimate; and hence sending such mail by them is considered legitimate activity". I'd say it's quite obvious, though.
I am not assuming malice on Google's part, at least not in this particular context. [...]
My bad. For me English is a second language.
Same here.
But «fucks us in the arse» implies a deliberate act.
Well, my bad. Should have been more clear there, I give you that. I do attribute malice to Google with regard to several of their recent actions (the Jabber debacle and the anti Net Neutrality stance, for starters). With great power (and Google does have great power over the Internet right now, sadly) comes great responsibility; they *should* be aware of what effect their policies have on the rest of the Net. And I would say, we should *expect* them to be aware of that. Even more -- I am quite sure they *are* aware. And hence, we're getting dangerously close to what could be described as malice: conscious decision to perform actions that are heavily detrimental to a lot of other entities with the only rationale being profit maximalisation. I shall re-phrase, then: "We are being fucked in the arse by GMail, so let's ask them politely to use some lubricant". This version leaves about as much space for GMail doing that completely accidentally and without any knowledge nor awareness of the grave effects their action will have as I am willing to leave. I.e. some, but not that much.
I see your domain is from Poland, which is quite a backward country when it comes to anything people do, yet a pope disaproves. Meaning anal sex, heterosexual, homosexual or plain masturbation is a very very bad thing to do. I might be wrong, but in this context «GMail fucks us in the arse» implies at least malice. Yet now you write «I am not assuming malice on Google's part». Help me understand.
I'm sorry, but I find your your comment right there borderline offensive.
From the perspective of copyright reform debate[1] and Internet porn censorship debate[2] I could say that many other countries are extremely backwards with regard to some things (censorship, copyright, porn), bot that doesn't get us anywhere, does it.
[1] http://rys.io/en/70 [2] http://rys.io/en/109 Not to mention the unwarranted generalisation that "all Poles are <insert your observation>". That has some potential to backfire, after all there is a slim chance you could happen to be talking to an atheist[3]... [3] http://rys.io/en/16 Also, the .io domain here might prove problematic to interpret in the context of your previous assumptions, I guess.
Had such a centralisation not occured, there would be no serious problem. One of the providers introduces such policies? Fine, whatever, they have a few percent of users at the most, we can live with that. And users can switch, no problemo.
How can anybody draw the line? It's fine as long as they are under an arbitrary value set by WHOM, but it's wrong after that?
Well, as with *most* of important things in life, there is no precise border, crossing of which makes you a monopolist. But I guess we can all agree that if Avaaz sees that as a grave danger, that might be some indication.
However, with GMail having such a huge slice of the pie, they can literally make or break organisations like Avaaz.
Than they should break Avaaz.
If one company depends so much on another, than you can call the first one a parasyte. If it's existence depends on Google, than they should ask nicely and maybe forward a nice sum of money. Or they have quite some nerve to try to impose rules from the position of parasyte.
Hopefuly for you their niche might be filled afterwards by a company that can stand on its own.
Okay, I think you didn't get the crux of the issue. Avaaz, AFAIK, is *not* using Google's services to distribute mail. Their members/users/activists do for their personal accounts. It's not that Avaaz is *relying* on Google/GMail, it's that they have no say who delivers their mail to a huge part of their users/activists. Also, it's not a company, it's an NGO.
And the right way to deal with that is at least telling the users "look, the problem is related to centralisation, considering moving to a different mail provider would be a good idea".
Don't you think that is for the people to decide?
You *do* see the difference between: "look, the problem is related to centralisation, considering moving to a different mail provider would be a good idea" ...and... "we demand you move to a different provider immediately" ...right?
Instead, what we get is "please, dear users, play according to rules set by this behemoth that can do with e-mail whatever the hell it wants". Hence my (overly ribald for some, as it turns out) metaphor.
Because they way you expressed it, as I have no idea what Avaaz is or does, they are a puny corporation living from Google's leftovers. Meaning Google does a good thing for their users.
Avaaz is ~20mln-strong civic organisation operating via on-line petitions to try and convince politicians to sometimes do the right thing. Instead of slandering them, you might want to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaaz Yes, I should have provided the link in my first e-mail, I assumed that on this list Avaaz might be already known. See, everybody makes wrong assumptions from time to time. -- Pozdr rysiek
On 21.08.2013 00:19, rysiek wrote:
What do you mean by «legitimate»? And second what do you mean by «legitimate activities»?
Not sure if troll, but oh-kay...
I mean "I have subscribed to their list; this list provides clearly marked and functional way of unsubscribing; thus, mail from this source is considered legitimate; and hence sending such mail by them is considered legitimate activity".
I'd say it's quite obvious, though.
Cute. Last time I have checked spam meant unsolicited mail, nothing about providing ways to unsubscribe. Would that make a spammer who keeps sending me offers because their system keeps reharvesting my address ok as long as give me a way to unsubscribe each time? I know it's not the case of Avaaz, but still. Yet, you have avoided once more the question. I'll requote it:
By introducing policies that are disruptive to legitimate activities. Why they are disruptive? Because GMail is being used by a huge part of e-mail users.
What do you mean by «legitimate»? And second what do you mean by «legitimate activities»?
Or is it just a figgure of speech? You write over and over again «us» although you are one person (I think). You generalise «policies that are disruptive to legitimate activities» and yet you only meant Avaaz. What's this?
But «fucks us in the arse» implies a deliberate act.
Well, my bad. Should have been more clear there, I give you that.
I do attribute malice to Google with regard to several of their recent actions (the Jabber debacle and the anti Net Neutrality stance, for starters). With great power (and Google does have great power over the Internet right now, sadly) comes great responsibility; they *should* be aware of what effect their policies have on the rest of the Net.
Jabber is a server. Google has never supported Jabber as far as I know. Do you know anything against it? Net Neutrality is accepted by Google. They are against it. And lobby against it. And it's their right. I have searched their help pages and they never say anything like «we fight for Net Neutrality». And you know why I believe this is not an issue? Christians say Thou shall not kill, yet many christian countries have the capital punishment. Islam supporters come forward and say islam is a religion of peace even after all those bloody attacks. Buddhists and hindus are about don't do harm as you will have a crappy future life and still they kill other people. Yet people like you keep going after Google, implying they are somehow evil. And most of them, at least the ones I know, they do enjoy at least few of the things Google provides for free and on a daily basis. Am I wrong to call it hypocrisy? That quote, like the also often used «freedom of speech» argument, was meant for the state. Not for people or companies. It might sound nice, that does not make it true. Neither makes it binding. I am sure they are well aware of the effects. And that they ponder it well before jumping with a new service. As long as it brings Google closer to 100% of the online advertising business it's good. As long as it brings Google closer to 100% of the portable devices business it's good. And so on for each and every market they're in as well as markets they are going to start conquering after this wonderful August 2013.
And I would say, we should *expect* them to be aware of that. Even more -- I am quite sure they *are* aware. And hence, we're getting dangerously close to what could be described as malice: conscious decision to perform actions that are heavily detrimental to a lot of other entities with the only rationale being profit maximalisation.
That's all cheap propaganda. It's wrong on so many levels.
I shall re-phrase, then:
"We are being fucked in the arse by GMail, so let's ask them politely to use some lubricant".
Do you have multiple personalities? Probably you are not aware of this. But your discourse contains more crap than anything I have read as coming from Google or one of its owners. «we» is a way to implicate the guillable. If you had any decency you would have limited that «we» to anything more precise. Paranoid people. People who need protection from their own states. People who hear voices. People living in the Northen Hemisphere. Me and my partner. People who can't afford $5 a year for a mail account. Anything but we.
This version leaves about as much space for GMail doing that completely accidentally and without any knowledge nor awareness of the grave effects their action will have as I am willing to leave. I.e. some, but not that much.
Sure. These days I was checking the laptop market for somebody. Guess what! Most laptops, at least the cheap ones do not have a LED for hard drive activity. So the user is left in the dark about hard drive activity. Most laptops do not have the flickering leds for WiFi. Many laptops don't have flickering leds for the Ethernet port, and some have it, but you have to turn the laptop in a weird position to notice them. Some don't have a LED to signal if the webcam is on or off, and some can turn that led off in software. I have yet to see a laptop that has the microphone with an associated LED to show it's status on / off. No switch, Ethernet or otherwise, signals it might be under surveilance. And the list can go on for a few pages. And I am sorry, but I do not recall any hysteric person making a fuss about any of the above issues.
I see your domain is from Poland, which is quite a backward country when it comes to anything people do, yet a pope disaproves. Meaning anal sex, heterosexual, homosexual or plain masturbation is a very very bad thing to do. I might be wrong, but in this context «GMail fucks us in the arse» implies at least malice. Yet now you write «I am not assuming malice on Google's part». Help me understand.
I'm sorry, but I find your your comment right there borderline offensive.
I'm sorry too. It's the second time this day you are pointing that out so I'll be quiet afterwards.
From the perspective of copyright reform debate[1] and Internet porn censorship debate[2] I could say that many other countries are extremely backwards with regard to some things (censorship, copyright, porn), bot that doesn't get us anywhere, does it.
[1] http://rys.io/en/70 [2] http://rys.io/en/109
Not to mention the unwarranted generalisation that "all Poles are <insert your observation>". That has some potential to backfire, after all there is a slim chance you could happen to be talking to an atheist[3]...
Poland is to Europe what Pakistan is to the Orient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country Now one might argue that Catholics are a few centuries ahead of Islam. But the point was that being in Poland for an extended period makes one feel anal sex far more offensive than a civilised country like Denmark or The Netherlands, even if there are only a few kilometers away (that is a figgure of speech). I never even even imply anything remote like «all poles». I happen to know quite a few Russians living there. Ukrainians too. The Jews have had a very difficult life in the past century, but there are still a few. And I can assure a Jew living in Posen has a better chance to be prejudiced against gay people than a Jew living in New York. And that can be a good argument: myself I believe that developing critical thinking to fight 1000 year old or older beliefs can help with the need for freedom and privacy. Yet things like denying medical care because it might lead to an abortion are far worse than Google policy. I'm not saying PRISM is a good thing. I'm saying only that there are far worse things which get ignored.
Also, the .io domain here might prove problematic to interpret in the context of your previous assumptions, I guess.
Yes. It might be have something to do with Input/Output so it might be a key logger. Or worse: it can lead to IOerr, famous hacker who happens to be of jewish descent and the Sionists have an agenda of World domination just as exposed in revealing show Pinky and the Brain. Sorry. Couldn't help myself. This whole paragraph is a joke.
Had such a centralisation not occured, there would be no serious problem. One of the providers introduces such policies? Fine, whatever, they have a few percent of users at the most, we can live with that. And users can switch, no problemo.
How can anybody draw the line? It's fine as long as they are under an arbitrary value set by WHOM, but it's wrong after that?
Well, as with *most* of important things in life, there is no precise border, crossing of which makes you a monopolist. But I guess we can all agree that if Avaaz sees that as a grave danger, that might be some indication.
The answer according to me: there can't be set a reliable limit. Thus there should be no limit. Either you leave the things the way they are or you start working towards forbiding by the law.
However, with GMail having such a huge slice of the pie, they can literally make or break organisations like Avaaz.
Than they should break Avaaz.
If one company depends so much on another, than you can call the first one a parasyte. If it's existence depends on Google, than they should ask nicely and maybe forward a nice sum of money. Or they have quite some nerve to try to impose rules from the position of parasyte.
Hopefuly for you their niche might be filled afterwards by a company that can stand on its own.
Okay, I think you didn't get the crux of the issue.
Avaaz, AFAIK, is *not* using Google's services to distribute mail. Their members/users/activists do for their personal accounts. It's not that Avaaz is *relying* on Google/GMail, it's that they have no say who delivers their mail to a huge part of their users/activists.
Than there should be no problem getting their message some other way than email.
Also, it's not a company, it's an NGO.
You mean it's not for profit.
And the right way to deal with that is at least telling the users "look, the problem is related to centralisation, considering moving to a different mail provider would be a good idea".
Don't you think that is for the people to decide?
You *do* see the difference between:
"look, the problem is related to centralisation, considering moving to a different mail provider would be a good idea"
...and...
"we demand you move to a different provider immediately"
...right?
Than what's the fuss with the grave danger? Why does this thread exist?
Instead, what we get is "please, dear users, play according to rules set by this behemoth that can do with e-mail whatever the hell it wants". Hence my (overly ribald for some, as it turns out) metaphor.
Because they way you expressed it, as I have no idea what Avaaz is or does, they are a puny corporation living from Google's leftovers. Meaning Google does a good thing for their users.
Avaaz is ~20mln-strong civic organisation operating via on-line petitions to try and convince politicians to sometimes do the right thing. Instead of slandering them, you might want to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaaz
Online petitions. Meaning spam. I recall another initiative like that: feeding African children by clicking banners. Each click meant one piece of rice. I've read the creator is stinking rich because of that.
Yes, I should have provided the link in my first e-mail, I assumed that on this list Avaaz might be already known. See, everybody makes wrong assumptions from time to time.
It seems that I am helping the cause of that corporation. Sorry, I'm against.
On 18.08.2013 23:48, rysiek wrote:
I happen to be on Avaaz's info distribution list,
Weird. «Happen to be» sounds like you were waiting for a bus and overhearing a talk behind you.
My question is: does *anybody* on this list have some kind of contact within Avaaz? I'd *love* to talk to them about it.
One of you does have a BIG problem. Either you are subscribed to some spam corporation with no way to contact them, or you are just using this list to raise awarness about some corporation by making others look for solutions for you. Or is it something else?
Dnia wtorek, 20 sierpnia 2013 14:22:09 Moon Jones pisze:
On 18.08.2013 23:48, rysiek wrote:
I happen to be on Avaaz's info distribution list,
Weird. «Happen to be» sounds like you were waiting for a bus and overhearing a talk behind you.
Or, I am just using a figure of speech. I could have used "once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away I have apparently signed up for"; or "I must've been drunk, as I don't remember signing-up, but it must've sounded like a good idea back then"; or "as a strong supporter of Avaaz I look forward to each and every single one of their magnificent mailings". For no particular reason I have happened to chose this particular figure of speech, however. / see what I did just there? ;) /
My question is: does *anybody* on this list have some kind of contact within Avaaz? I'd *love* to talk to them about it.
One of you does have a BIG problem. Either you are subscribed to some spam corporation with no way to contact them, or you are just using this list to raise awarness about some corporation by making others look for solutions for you. Or is it something else?
Or, I'm just asking on a pretty technical mailing list if anybody has any contact to an organisation that brushes shoulders with techies on a regular basis, which I would like to contact. I found many, many times that such a strategy is not problematic to other list members while offering decent probability of success. If it has caused you any distress or anguish, I apologise with utmost sincerity. Please note that the "contact info" question was just "by the way", and had I not gotten the idea to ask that question I would have sent ("I would have happened to send"?) my e-mail either way (granted, with a bit different ending). -- Pozdr rysiek
On 20.08.2013 15:41, rysiek wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 20 sierpnia 2013 14:22:09 Moon Jones pisze:
On 18.08.2013 23:48, rysiek wrote:
I happen to be on Avaaz's info distribution list,
Weird. «Happen to be» sounds like you were waiting for a bus and overhearing a talk behind you.
Or, I am just using a figure of speech.
A figure of speech meaning what than? Shouldn't communication make thing clear?
One of you does have a BIG problem. Either you are subscribed to some spam corporation with no way to contact them, or you are just using this list to raise awarness about some corporation by making others look for solutions for you. Or is it something else?
Or, I'm just asking on a pretty technical mailing list if anybody has any contact to an organisation that brushes shoulders with techies on a regular basis, which I would like to contact.
This list is a rather active one. It's in English so it's fair to assume even if they are not Americans, a good part of the subscribed members are from the States. As many people in the States live in New York, one might go ahead and ask for a good pizza place or for the average rent for one room appartments. Weird. I don't think that is appropiate. But I will not continue on this thread.
I found many, many times that such a strategy is not problematic to other list members while offering decent probability of success. If it has caused you any distress or anguish, I apologise with utmost sincerity.
Please do not apologise. But notice that most unprofessional spammers also follow the same reasoning. «I thought someone might be interested» some say.
participants (14)
-
alex wright -
Alexander R. Krug -
Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb -
Collin RM Stocks -
CryptoFreak -
Eric Murray -
grarpamp -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Moon Jones -
rysiek -
staticsafe -
Steve Furlong -
Ted Smith -
The Doctor