THE RBC has a right to sue Gmail out of existence.
eMail provider such as Google GMail should be held
responsible for the actions of their users? Perhaps the
problem is that user accounts of scammers are not being
shut down? (If so, then I wonder if perhaps that could
make them liable as ongoing facilitators.)
--
Randolf Richardson 張文道, CNA - noc@inter-corporate.com
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
https://www.inter-corporate.com/
On 11/28/2024 5:57 PM, The Doctor wrote:
THE RBC has a right to sue Gmail out of existence.
You would think that both Microsoft and Google would be willing
to provide IP lists for accounts responsible for the phishing attempt.
On 12/12/24 1:47 AM, Post To Usenet wrote:
On 11/28/2024 5:57 PM, The Doctor wrote:
THE RBC has a right to sue Gmail out of existence.
You would think that both Microsoft and Google would be willing
to provide IP lists for accounts responsible for the phishing attempt.
Problem was often the Internet Cafes.
I received the same spam from different accounts.
All reported to Gmail.
The spamming ended either by spammer giving up
or that Gmail quarantained bulk email
other such miscreants rely on. In particular, restaurants and
plenty of retail shops tend to use their phone number for the
WiFi password so their customers can easily figure out how to
get connected while enjoying a meal, shopping, lining up to pay
for goods and services, etc.
Yes, you can use them to connect up to gmail over the web, but that's
about it. This puts the responsibility on gmail.
--scott
Randolf Richardson =?UTF-8?B?5by15paH6YGT?= <noc@inter-corporate.com> wrote: >Or is there something I'm missing here? Do you think an
eMail provider such as Google GMail should be held
responsible for the actions of their users? Perhaps the
problem is that user accounts of scammers are not being
shut down? (If so, then I wonder if perhaps that could
make them liable as ongoing facilitators.)
It is expected that any provider would make basic attempts to prevent
spam. That includes shutting down the accounts of users who have
engendered spam complaints, as well as throttling email or shutting
down accounts when obvious spam signatures are found. If someone is
sending thousands of messages a day to consecutive addresses, it is
worth investigating them to see if they are spamming.
gmail actually does an okay job of this but a lot of them fall through
the cracks just because of the number of users they have. And Google
Groups, although it no longer can be used to spam Usenet, can be set up
with distribution mailing lists to send spam and Google completely
ignores those.
I believe that this is a reasonable expectation. It's a problem
when the internet provider is also the spammer, but I don't have
any reason to suspect that Google is in the spam business
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:17:40 -0800, Randolf Richardson ??? ><noc@inter-corporate.com> wrote:
snip
I believe that this is a reasonable expectation. It's a problem
when the internet provider is also the spammer, but I don't have
any reason to suspect that Google is in the spam business
if the broader definition of "spam" were to include both commercial and >non-commercial forms of advertising, off-topic and oft-crossposted junk, >troll-farm sockpuppetry, crowding, flooding, ad nauseam, then google is
the most successful server in history by virtue of the unrivaled volume
of articles injected into the usenet newsgroup forums... but apart from
the mass numbers involved, literally billions and billions and billions >(reminiscent of carl sagan talking about the number of suns in galaxies) >google wasn't doing anything much worse than what all other servers are
doing as a matter of routine ... google only did a whole lot more of it
I was disappointed when Google shutdown their Usenet connection,
because it meant that fewer people would be using it. I think
they wanted to divorce themselves of the headache though, and I
don't blame them for this because the vast majority of postings I
see in the more popular newsgroups are spam and/or hostile trolls.
who've essentially ruined the technology for most people.
I don't think its spam and trolls that doomed Usenet.
The reason for Usenet's death spiral is that it was marginally more >cumbersome and difficult to participate in Usenet than it was to click a
URL. Also, a lot of Usenet's engagement was a side effect of alt.binaries. A >lot came for the pr0n and warez, and then also took a look at other things >while they were there. This worked until more efficient means of
distributing pr0n and warez became popular. That, and the developing >idiocracy is what doomed Usenet.
And THEN of course there was this huge backlash started by Cyrus Vance, Jr. who saw attacking it as a political tool. That pretty much put it to bed.
On 1/20/25 4:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
..
And THEN of course there was this huge backlash started by Cyrus Vance, Jr. >> who saw attacking it as a political tool. That pretty much put it to bed.
Unknown this side of the ocean.
Also not mentioned on his Wikipedia article
In article <vmm224$3a5rm$1@dont-email.me>, tjoen <tjoen@dds.nl> wrote:
On 1/20/25 4:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
..
And THEN of course there was this huge backlash started by Cyrus Vance, Jr. >>> who saw attacking it as a political tool. That pretty much put it to bed. >>Unknown this side of the ocean.
Also not mentioned on his Wikipedia article
I'm surprised it wasn't known there because it was such a huge deal on
Usenet at the time.... so many people lost Usenet access when almost all
of the major American ISPs dropped their Usenet service at once.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 465 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 68:51:52 |
| Calls: | 9,411 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,575 |
| Messages: | 6,101,140 |