Hey, John Pollard - $10 DSL?

From: "R. C. White"

| Hi, John. |

Bye spammer !

Dave:

I think R.C. is a more valuable member of this community than you are. Unless someone went to a lot of trouble to spoof the original post, R.C. is posting a VALUABLE piece of news.

Bob

| Hi, John. |

Bye spammer !

I had the exact same feeling ... and nearly posted those feelings.

I am not that sophisticated about what spammers are capable of, so I am kindof glad I didn't jump to a conclusion.

I finally decided that I would wait for the "real" R.C. to chime in on the issue. If he sent that post, David Lippman owes us an apology ... otherwise, ... well David Lippman may have alerted us to a spammer, but I'm not sure what anyone can do about it.

I am convinced of one thing: I will support *whatever* it takes to **destroy** spammers ... if I can do so without harming non-spammers.

John:

This is actually a VERY interesting situation, usually "Follow the Money" helps finger the perps. However, in this case, AT&T seems quite unhappy to have to sign up any new customers at the cut-rate. So, AT&T wouldn't be spamming. Someone with a bone to pick with AT&T would still be creating new customers by spamming. A really convoluted rationale would have someone happy to drive new customers to AT&T, but at $10 instead of $15.

Occam's Razor would militate for our resident accountant emeritus being the original author.

Bob

Hi, John.

Me? A spammer? Hah!

But I can see how someone could easily have gotten that idea from my post. ;^[

Yes, it really was me who posted that. As I said, my son emailed the story to me and I immediately thought of the discussion here a week or so ago. And I thought that, even if you were not interested, John, some of the others here might be.

No hard feelings, David. In fact, I quite agree with you! But I would have simply ignored me - as I've ignored a few spammers here over the years. Giving them attention simply feeds their ego, especially if they think that they have made us angry.

Sorry to have caused a furor. I'll try to be more discreet next time.

RC

From: "R. C. White"

| Hi, John. | | Me? A spammer? Hah! | | But I can see how someone could easily have gotten that idea from my post. | ;^[ | | Yes, it really was me who posted that. As I said, my son emailed the story | to me and I immediately thought of the discussion here a week or so ago. | And I thought that, even if you were not interested, John, some of the | others here might be. | | No hard feelings, David. In fact, I quite agree with you! But I would have | simply ignored me - as I've ignored a few spammers here over the years. | Giving them attention simply feeds their ego, especially if they think that | they have made us angry. | | Sorry to have caused a furor. I'll try to be more discreet next time. | | RC

Actually, I DO tend ignore spammers. This post had an "odd feel" to it so I made my reply hoping to irk a response.

Your response shows that it is not a form of spam. Spammers are getting very smart. They are making their spam seem like legitimate posts. Often the spammers are members of affiliate networks. They spam to get the "kickback".

In the future, please prepend "OT" to the subject such as...

"OT: Hey, John Pollard - $10 DSL?"

I have never received (or heard of) a post such as RC's, that was spam. I don't mean to say it couldn't be done, but that I think - given all the factors involved here - that the burden of proof should be on those claiming such things are spam.

I grant that spammers will do what they can to stay ahead of those who would thwart them; but I totally disagree that we should assume that our friends are spammers ... with zero evidence to support the assumption.

If you want to identify spammers; great. You may be doing others a service. But I believe the burden is on you to prove they are spammers (or change the form of your response) ... everything that seems like spam to you, is not - as we now know - necessarily spam.

Or as we say too often, and support not often enough: innocent until proven guilty.

You caused no furor (nor any other problem) for me. I assumed it was you.

It was the poster that claimed you were a spammer that caused me a problem. I was ready to have someone prove otherwise, but gladly, it was not so.

And if the post in question had been spam, I would have no different reaction than I would to any other spammer ... basically I would have ignored them (in this group). [Well, to be honest, I would have taken notice that spamming was getting a bit more sophisticated ... but what the hell; since there has been no useful response to the existing level of spam, why would I expect anything else.]

Bottom line: thanks for the info. I am definitely looking into it.

Totally off topic.

I don't do any heavy duty downloading, don't watch videos, listen to music, etc. So, I was not aware that Comcast had quietly tripled download speeds. I WAS pleasantly surpirsed though, when I ran a speed test out of idle curiosity.

Bob

Be careful... this is their "Powerboost" or some such name. It allows downloads at a very high speed for a specific period of time then goes back to "normal" speeds.

For quick text downloads like yours, it's fine. Get into larger files and their speeds suck compared to what they say you are to get.

Service people were here three times and said my "levels" were good, but I get faster downloads via wireless from a neighbor's DSL.

PeterH

Hi, John - and David.

David was not really accusing ME of spamming. He was accusing some unknown person of stealing my identity to spam this group. At least, that was my interpretation. And, yes, I should have started the Subject line with OT.

Some of my friends - fellow MVPs - HAVE been the victims of online identity theft in other newsgroups. Usually the fraud is obvious because the content and style of the message is so out of character for the purported author. But some of them are artful enough to cause serious embarrassment - or worse - to the innocent "sender". In fact, I have jumped to the defense a couple of times, myself, when I thought the phony message was apt to cause harm to the reputation of the victim.

Maybe it's time to let this thread die?

RC

PeterH:

Well, that would explain why they're not making a bigger deal out of it.

Bob

For quick text downloads like yours, it's fine. Get into larger files and their speeds suck compared to what they say you are to get.

Service people were here three times and said my "levels" were good, but I get faster downloads via wireless from a neighbor's DSL.

PeterH

It also depends on the quality of the lines in your area. My step daughter just dropped Comcast because the lines were garbage. Comcast bought up so many old cable system over the years that their infrastructure in many areas results in poor internet service. One could also have the same type of issues with DSL if the phone lines in the area are old too. Only ISPs that are actively replacing their lines with fiber optics seem to be getting decent service.

Laura:

You and PeteH are quite correct, I decided to download XP SP2 from the Microsoft download site, 266MB, averaged just under 5MB/min. Works out to ~666Mbs, if my arithmetic is correct. (Comcast *IS* the Devil!) Funny that that's actually slower than the cut-rate AT&T DSL. I know, not so funny for people who need the speed, but DAMN, I may check out DSL ;-)

Bob

For what its worth... I would switch to DSL in a New York Heartbeat (that's really fast!) ifall my clients (and all my printed material as well) didn't have my Comcast information. Too many changes on too many systems to do that. Meanwhile, if you call and bitch, they'll give you their promotion of the day/week/month which around here might be as low as $20 a month rather than $50. All you have to do is threaten to go to DSL. They catch on after about three cycles of this so you have to let them charge you full price for a few months and then go back at it!

PeterH

From: "R. C. White"

| Hi, John - and David. | | David was not really accusing ME of spamming. He was accusing some unknown | person of stealing my identity to spam this group. At least, that was my | interpretation. And, yes, I should have started the Subject line with OT. | | Some of my friends - fellow MVPs - HAVE been the victims of online identity | theft in other newsgroups. Usually the fraud is obvious because the content | and style of the message is so out of character for the purported author. | But some of them are artful enough to cause serious embarrassment - or | worse - to the innocent "sender". In fact, I have jumped to the defense a | couple of times, myself, when I thought the phony message was apt to cause | harm to the reputation of the victim. | | Maybe it's time to let this thread die? | | RC

Thank you ! Two examples of MS MVPs who have been impersonated; Robear Dyer and Sharon Finks.

PS: Check me out with the MVPs related to security (COMSEC/INFOSEC).

Now that it's decided this isn't spam I should point out the AT&T is offering very low cost DSL in some areas but not in others.

My sister lives in San Marcos, Calif. and she was offered a $15/m DSL account with AT&T, the same program is $30/m. where I live with a 1/2 price offer for the first year only.

And, whether you or RC choose to acknowledge it, there is the possibility of causing harm. My point was simply that making an absolute declaration that a post is a spam, is not benfficial and not called for. The fact that the post you declared as absolutely spam here, was not spam, confirms my point.

I don't mind getting input (sometimes it is beneficial); but I don't like the idea that you, or anyone, would attempt to place your judgement ahead of mine in some absolute way, or to take the slightest chance that your post could be misinterpreted to indicate that someone was a spammer when they were not (as I think I made clear earlier: I despise spammers).

If you had evidence that R.C.'s post was spam, you should have provided that evidence; if you did not have such evidence, you should have said that. Guessing isn't good enough in this area; I don't care if you get 99% of your guesses correct.

By the way; I would love to see an example of the posts that impersonated these two. (Not doubting; wanting to see how "realistic" they are ... to me.)