It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for what
almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is, if
this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing into
hundreds of dollars. If it doesn't work (what I suspect), it's a scam.
Either way, people are screwed.

So I submitted some spam reports to the ISP where the spam originated, and
put an entry in an Internet abuse newsgroup. Not that it helped very
much -- the spam for this scam kept coming, albeit a bit less than before.

One month ago, my name turned up in spam messages touting this device and
Web site; the spammer had used my address as an unsubscribe link. Apart
from a few e-mails and phone calls from annoyed recipients, no real damage
was done, and after reporting the originating IP addresses to the ISP's,
the spam stopped.

Until two days ago, when all of a sudden, thousands of bounced e-mail
messages started pouring in. Apparently, a spammer (and I have no doubt
that this is the same person as before) had unleashed a huge spam run with
my name and e-mail address as sender, offering "Free Translation Services".
In other words: a classic Joe-job. Judging by the amount of bounces coming
in, he must have sent tens of thousands spam messages. Apart from thousands
of bounces, I also got many hundreds messages from people who were
understandably annoyed by the spam -- some had received four or five copies
of the message.

So, how to handle this? Well, it wasn't actually that difficult:
- My Debian mail server had no trouble at all dealing with >1500 messages
pouring in within a few minutes. And please note that this is still an
ancient machine with an Intel Celeron 230MHz CPU, and 196MB of RAM.
- Diverting the stream of spam to a separate folder was easily accomplished
in Evolution, with just three simple filter rules.
- Then I decided I wanted to reply to those messages from annoyed people,
explaining the situation. Just a few more filter rules separated the
automatic mail server messages (mostly bounces) from the reactions from
actual people, and a few simple Bash lines mailed an apology plus
explanation to each of these people individually(*).
- In order to send abuse messages to the appropriate ISP's, I had to filter
out the IP addresses where the spam originated. A bashdash of grep'n'sed
through the message headers(**) took care of this, resulting in a list of
no more than seven unique IP addresses. If this guy had a botnet under his
command, he either used only very few machines, or these seven were all he
had, and he has no botnet any more.
- Last but not least, I added an SPF record to my DNS data. This should
prevent most major ISP's and other organizations from accepting the spam
messages in the first place.

*: Not only did I get lots of friendly and supportive replies from people wo
received the spam, but several people were actually interested in the
services I could offer -- I should almost thank the spammer for the extra
business ... :-/

**: A word about Microsoft Exchange in this respect: it's utter crap.
It sends out error reports and mail notifications without ANY useful
information at all. No information about the original message whatsoever --
IP addresses, time stamps, URI's: all left out, for your convenience. In
other words: those notification are completely useless.

In all, I spent perhaps two hours dealing with this attack, mostly on
reporting and explaining the situation to IPS's and unlucky spam
recipients. Actually dealing with the messages and sending replies took les
than an hour, also thanks to Linux. Had I used Windows, I would have had a
much harder time -- although I must admit that this is not something
ordinary computer users can do in any case, so this point is somewhat moot.

But I'm still pleasantly surprised how capable even an old, very modest
Debian server is, and how much I've come to rely on doing things
the "difficult" way -- i.e. running just a few Bash lines to do complicated
search and sort tasks, and to send lots of individual messages to people.

Now all that is left is to find the guy responsible, and drag him into court
for disrupting my business (2 whole hours of it) and tarnishing my name.

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

On 2010-12-29, Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> claimed:
> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for what
> almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is, if
> this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing into
> hundreds of dollars. If it doesn't work (what I suspect), it's a scam.
> Either way, people are screwed.
>
> So I submitted some spam reports to the ISP where the spam originated, and
> put an entry in an Internet abuse newsgroup. Not that it helped very
> much -- the spam for this scam kept coming, albeit a bit less than before.
>
> One month ago, my name turned up in spam messages touting this device and
> Web site; the spammer had used my address as an unsubscribe link. Apart
> from a few e-mails and phone calls from annoyed recipients, no real damage
> was done, and after reporting the originating IP addresses to the ISP's,
> the spam stopped.
>
> Until two days ago, when all of a sudden, thousands of bounced e-mail
> messages started pouring in. Apparently, a spammer (and I have no doubt
> that this is the same person as before) had unleashed a huge spam run with
> my name and e-mail address as sender, offering "Free Translation Services".
> In other words: a classic Joe-job. Judging by the amount of bounces coming
> in, he must have sent tens of thousands spam messages. Apart from thousands
> of bounces, I also got many hundreds messages from people who were
> understandably annoyed by the spam -- some had received four or five copies
> of the message.
>
> So, how to handle this? Well, it wasn't actually that difficult:
> - My Debian mail server had no trouble at all dealing with >1500 messages
> pouring in within a few minutes. And please note that this is still an
> ancient machine with an Intel Celeron 230MHz CPU, and 196MB of RAM.
> - Diverting the stream of spam to a separate folder was easily accomplished
> in Evolution, with just three simple filter rules.
> - Then I decided I wanted to reply to those messages from annoyed people,
> explaining the situation. Just a few more filter rules separated the
> automatic mail server messages (mostly bounces) from the reactions from
> actual people, and a few simple Bash lines mailed an apology plus
> explanation to each of these people individually(*).
> - In order to send abuse messages to the appropriate ISP's, I had to filter
> out the IP addresses where the spam originated. A bashdash of grep'n'sed
> through the message headers(**) took care of this, resulting in a list of
> no more than seven unique IP addresses. If this guy had a botnet under his
> command, he either used only very few machines, or these seven were all he
> had, and he has no botnet any more.
> - Last but not least, I added an SPF record to my DNS data. This should
> prevent most major ISP's and other organizations from accepting the spam
> messages in the first place.
>
> *: Not only did I get lots of friendly and supportive replies from people wo
> received the spam, but several people were actually interested in the
> services I could offer -- I should almost thank the spammer for the extra
> business ... :-/
>
> **: A word about Microsoft Exchange in this respect: it's utter crap.
> It sends out error reports and mail notifications without ANY useful
> information at all. No information about the original message whatsoever --
> IP addresses, time stamps, URI's: all left out, for your convenience. In
> other words: those notification are completely useless.
>
> In all, I spent perhaps two hours dealing with this attack, mostly on
> reporting and explaining the situation to IPS's and unlucky spam
> recipients. Actually dealing with the messages and sending replies took les
> than an hour, also thanks to Linux. Had I used Windows, I would have had a
> much harder time -- although I must admit that this is not something
> ordinary computer users can do in any case, so this point is somewhat moot.
>
> But I'm still pleasantly surprised how capable even an old, very modest
> Debian server is, and how much I've come to rely on doing things
> the "difficult" way -- i.e. running just a few Bash lines to do complicated
> search and sort tasks, and to send lots of individual messages to people.
>
> Now all that is left is to find the guy responsible, and drag him into court
> for disrupting my business (2 whole hours of it) and tarnishing my name.

Another angle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/26/national/a113305S63.DTL

I used to send threatening warnings to spammers. Mostly it worked. But
it was a lot of effort tracking some of them down though their faked
headers. So I run most of my email through gmail because it's filtering
is superb for most things.

I have 3 gmail accounts handling about 14 email addresses. I have two
other email addresses that gmail doesn't handle, one that only receives
spam because I never use it (supplied by the ISP and I can't change it,
all goes to /dev/null) and one I rarely use and only give to close
non-Windummie OS users (so I won't be found in their addressbooks and
start getting spammed).

Things work well enough for my lazy ass.

-- 
OUT TO LUNCH - If not back at five, OUT TO DINNER!
Aspire One, Peppermint Ice
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On Dec 29, 7:00=A0pm, Richard Rasker <spamt...@linetec.nl> wrote:
> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for wha=
t
> almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is, if
> this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing into
> hundreds of dollars. If it doesn't work (what I suspect), it's a scam.
> Either way, people are screwed.

Wrong.  It's not illegal in some US states.  Perhaps US citizens in
these states living in the Netherlands would find this device useful.
You just deprived them of the right to view this gadget.

>
> So I submitted some spam reports to the ISP where the spam originated, an=
d
> put an entry in an Internet abuse newsgroup. Not that it helped very
> much -- the spam for this scam kept coming, albeit a bit less than before=
..

So what?  Again, you retarded a legitimate sales pitch, retard.

>
> One month ago, my name turned up in spam messages touting this device and
> Web site; the spammer had used my address as an unsubscribe link. Apart
> from a few e-mails and phone calls from annoyed recipients, no real damag=
e
> was done, and after reporting the originating IP addresses to the ISP's,
> the spam stopped.
>
> Until two days ago, when all of a sudden, thousands of bounced e-mail
> messages started pouring in. Apparently, a spammer (and I have no doubt
> that this is the same person as before) had unleashed a huge spam run wit=
h
> my name and e-mail address as sender, offering "Free Translation Services=
".
> In other words: a classic Joe-job.

What is a "classic Joe-job" you nut job?

>  Judging by the amount of bounces coming
> in, he must have sent tens of thousands spam messages. Apart from thousan=
ds
> of bounces, I also got many hundreds messages from people who were
> understandably annoyed by the spam -- some had received four or five copi=
es
> of the message.

Serves you right for trying to shut down a legitimate sales pitch.
It's not like he was trying to scam your bank account.

>
> So, how to handle this? Well, it wasn't actually that difficult:
> - My Debian mail server had no trouble at all dealing with >1500 messages
> pouring in within a few minutes. And please note that this is still an
> ancient machine with an Intel Celeron 230MHz CPU, and 196MB of RAM.

Ancient machine, ancient OS (Linux).  Figures.
{Boring technical details deleted}


> *: Not only did I get lots of friendly and supportive replies from people=
 wo
> received the spam, but several people were actually interested in the
> services I could offer -- I should almost thank the spammer for the extra
> business ... :-/

ALMOST?  YOU INGRATE!  OF course you should thank the spammer.  Are
you crazy?  How else would you have met these friendly people?  You
deprived a spammer from making a legitimate sales pitch, you picked up
business from gullible and naive people who support you as the result
of this spammer, and you have no praise for your friend?  No wonder
the Dutch lost the East Indies.  Bunch of racist ingrates.

>
> **: A word about Microsoft Exchange in this respect: it's utter crap.
> It sends out error reports and mail notifications without ANY useful
> information at all. No information about the original message whatsoever =
--
> IP addresses, time stamps, URI's: all left out, for your convenience. In
> other words: those notification are completely useless.

Whatever.  Upgrade to the latest MSFT products and then let's talk.
You're probably dealing with old versions.

>
> In all, I spent perhaps two hours dealing with this attack, mostly on
> reporting and explaining the situation to IPS's and unlucky spam
> recipients. Actually dealing with the messages and sending replies took l=
es
> than an hour, also thanks to Linux. Had I used Windows, I would have had =
a
> much harder time -- although I must admit that this is not something
> ordinary computer users can do in any case, so this point is somewhat moo=
t.

Although you must admit... what a load of crap.  You're just a Linux
propagandist, face it Richard.

> Now all that is left is to find the guy responsible, and drag him into co=
urt
> for disrupting my business (2 whole hours of it) and tarnishing my name.

Damages?  What are the damages fool?  You just admitted that you
picked up business.  Unless you lie to the judge (which I would not
put past you) anything you lost from deal with the alleged spam you
gained from new business.  Damages =3D negative money, in the
defendant's favor.  You owe the 'spammer' money, not the other way
around fool.

>
> Richard Rasker
> --http://www.linetec.nl

Netherlands.  Reminds me of Hades and "the neither lands" a place of
perdition.

And your country lost the World Cup to my country.  Even with their
foreign mercenaries.

RL

Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:

> So, how to handle this?

Here's I handle it: UIN aliases. If the alias gets compromised, kill it.

Done.

Meanwhile, greylisting has kept my inbox spam free for years.

I used to chase spammers, but it was becoming a full-time career, and
not one I especially enjoyed, so I took more defensive measures instead.
 
-- 
K.                           | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org            | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | ignorant twits who know nothing
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 5 days   | about GNU/Linux."

Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
> 
>> So, how to handle this?
> 
> Here's I handle it: UIN aliases. If the alias gets compromised, kill it.
> 
> Done.

I have a business, so I can't simply abandon e-mail addresses.

> Meanwhile, greylisting has kept my inbox spam free for years.

The trouble with this spammer is that it took a long time for him to appear
in spam listings -- partly because his ISP failed to heed abuse reports. 
In the end, he also took special care to leave out even the keywords which
hinted at the nature of his product: nu Web site address, and no words
like "radar", "radiation", "detector" or "fine".
Combined with the fact that he routinely uses "borrowed", existing Dutch and
Belgian sender addresses this made it quite difficult to simply filter him
out.

> I used to chase spammers, but it was becoming a full-time career, and
> not one I especially enjoyed, so I took more defensive measures instead.

"Normal" business-to-business spammers (i.e. the ones who at least use their
own e-mail addresses) get one warning, after which abuse reports are sent
out; also, their domain is added to my mail server block list, so their
rubbish is refused without me even knowing about it. But that doesn't work
with forged sender addresses. And if there's no SPF record for the sender
domain, it really becomes quite hard to automatically block this guy.

Having said this, I usually don't have to go to these extreme lengths. Most
spam is handled just fine automatically, and only the persevering,
inventive and criminal types from the Dutch language region get my special
treatment -- because they're both the most annoying, and easiest to track
down and shut down.

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:

> Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
>> 
>>> So, how to handle this?
>> 
>> Here's I handle it: UIN aliases. If the alias gets compromised, kill it.
>> 
>> Done.
>
> I have a business, so I can't simply abandon e-mail addresses.
>
>> Meanwhile, greylisting has kept my inbox spam free for years.
>
> The trouble with this spammer is that it took a long time for him to appear
> in spam listings -- partly because his ISP failed to heed abuse reports. 
> In the end, he also took special care to leave out even the keywords which
> hinted at the nature of his product: nu Web site address, and no words
> like "radar", "radiation", "detector" or "fine".
> Combined with the fact that he routinely uses "borrowed", existing Dutch and
> Belgian sender addresses this made it quite difficult to simply filter him
> out.
>
>> I used to chase spammers, but it was becoming a full-time career, and
>> not one I especially enjoyed, so I took more defensive measures instead.
>
> "Normal" business-to-business spammers (i.e. the ones who at least use their
> own e-mail addresses) get one warning, after which abuse reports are sent
> out; also, their domain is added to my mail server block list, so their
> rubbish is refused without me even knowing about it. But that doesn't work
> with forged sender addresses. And if there's no SPF record for the sender
> domain, it really becomes quite hard to automatically block this guy.
>
> Having said this, I usually don't have to go to these extreme lengths. Most
> spam is handled just fine automatically, and only the persevering,
> inventive and criminal types from the Dutch language region get my special
> treatment -- because they're both the most annoying, and easiest to track
> down and shut down.
>
> Richard Rasker


Spam is simply not an issue for me. Why?

1) gmail : excellent server side filtering
2) gnus and spamassassin/bogofilter (additionally or alternatively)

Dont want gmail? Fine. Using Linux systems you can configure fetchmail
to call procmail which in turn can apply spam filters such as
spamassassin and bogofilter and reroute your mail appropriately.

if you dont use fetchmail, e.g you use your own mail domain and have
exim4 processing you can still use spamassassin with it : just bundle a
few spam messages and then re-train spamassassin. I suspect it can be
automated very very easily.

It makes much more sense to filter the spam when receiving rather
allowing evolution to do it. You can browse the spam folders later if
necessary.

Debian on an old machine like that makes a perfect
mailserver/gateway. Have it run a Dovecot IMAP server and then you can
access you filtered email from anywhere.

Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
> Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
>> 
>>> So, how to handle this?
>> 
>> Here's how I handle it: UIN aliases. If the alias gets compromised,
>> kill it.
>> 
>> Done.
>
> I have a business, so I can't simply abandon e-mail addresses.

You probably could with some reorganisation. As a customer, look at the
replies you receive from various businesses: many use UIN-encoded reply
addresses, typically incorporating the customer's account number, and a
transaction or reference number. They devnull the static "From" address
and the only point of cold-contact is a Web form.

>> Meanwhile, greylisting has kept my inbox spam free for years.
>
> The trouble with this spammer is that it took a long time for him to
> appear in spam listings

Greylisting doesn't use blocklists or even Bayesian heuristics, it
simply forces MTAs to wait, and try the MX handshake again later,
because the receiving MTA is "busy". In fact it's not busy at all, it's
a test that very effectively differentiates between a genuine MTA and a
spam trojan running on a zombie node as part of a botnet (by far the
most common spam delivery mechanism), none of which (so far) seem to
support the full RFC specifications of a proper MTA, and thus are
unresponsive to the RFC 5321 error code 450 ("busy, try later"). A real
MTA will use an escalating timeout value beginning with a low number
(typically a few seconds), which will be enough to successfully send the
message to a greylist protected receiving system on the second attempt,
at which point the tuple comprising the sending address, receiving
address and sending MTA's IP is added to a whitelist that bypasses
future greylist delays. This is of course further configurable to
incorporate other tests, with tools like spamassassin, so even messages
that pass the greylist test can still be blocked.

> partly because his ISP failed to heed abuse reports. 

Not all ISPs are their own service providers, most are simply resellers,
so it may be possible to report the ISP to their upstream provider, and
have them (and the spammer) sanctioned that way instead, since the
reseller's failure to address abuse reports is typically a violation of
the main provider's T&Cs.  The main providers tend to not have such lax
policies, except in certain foreign countries like China, which is an
infamous spam haven. The MTAs operated by spam havens tend to remain on
SBLs permanently, so it only takes one properly configured relay between
the spammer and you (including your own) to prevent the message getting
through.

> In the end, he also took special care to leave out even the keywords
> which hinted at the nature of his product: nu Web site address, and no
> words like "radar", "radiation", "detector" or "fine".  Combined with
> the fact that he routinely uses "borrowed", existing Dutch and Belgian
> sender addresses this made it quite difficult to simply filter him
> out.

The "From" address is essentially meaningless, especially from the
perspective of dealing with spam. You need to look at the MX hand-offs
(the "Received" headers) to trace back to the real origin, and even that
will most likely be some compromised Windows zombie.

A combination of greylisting, Bayesian filtering, and using several SBLs
with spamassassin ought to be enough to pretty much kill all spam. In
practice, greylisting is usually enough by itself. 

In terms of more proactive measures, by far the best way of dealing with
spammers is to hit them where it hurts - in the wallet, by going after
the source of their ventures - the products they're advertising. As
you've noted, however, this requires quite a bit of work. Services like
SpamCop alleviate much of that work by doing it for you, reporting not
only the IP of the sending MTA to its provider, and in many cases its
upstream provider too, but also reporting the website hosting the
products (or e.g. malware) being advertised.

In the case of blatantly illegal products, you have the further
advantage of being able to report criminal activity to the police (the
FBI in the US, the Metropolitan Police e-crime Unit in the UK, etc.).
Even spammers (and the crime syndicates they work for) in foreign
countries aren't necessarily immune to prosecution, depending on exactly
which country they're in, and whether or not that country is an MLAT
signatory. Believe it or not, even countries like China honour certain
agreements through diplomatic channels (mutual back scratching).

But it really is an uphill battle, as the spam problem continues to rage
out of control. What's really needed is mandatory enforcement of
authentication (SPF), such that it's not possible to send email by
anonymous proxy, since all such messages will be rejected by receiving
systems. Any MTA failing to implement this system should be illegal, and
thus remedial measures could be taken against the host. That won't stop
spam, but it will mean spammers can no longer operate anonymously, and
thus cannot easily evade justice.

Meanwhile, an effective filtering system will at least mostly solve the
problem for recipients, alleviating the symptoms, if not actually
offering a cure.

-- 
K.                           | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org            | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | ignorant twits who know nothing
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 5 days   | about GNU/Linux."

On Dec 30, 3:51=A0pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:


> It makes much more sense to filter the spam when receiving rather
> allowing evolution to do it. You can browse the spam folders later if
> necessary.

Well said.  I use greylisting on my server and it's not failed me yet,
by and large.

But Richard rather 'go after' these 'criminal types' that spam in
Holland. In view of the fact the cartoon caricaturist almost got
knocked off again last week by Dutch Muslim kooks (which are legion it
seems), and by his own admission the spammers in Holland are
criminals, Richard sure shows he either has nerves of steel or is
incredibly stupid.

I vote for the latter.  After all, he is a Linux user.

RL

Hadron wrote:

> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
> 
>> Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
>>> 
>>>> So, how to handle this?
>>> 
>>> Here's I handle it: UIN aliases. If the alias gets compromised, kill it.
>>> 
>>> Done.
>>
>> I have a business, so I can't simply abandon e-mail addresses.
>>
>>> Meanwhile, greylisting has kept my inbox spam free for years.
>>
>> The trouble with this spammer is that it took a long time for him to
>> appear in spam listings -- partly because his ISP failed to heed abuse
>> reports. In the end, he also took special care to leave out even the
>> keywords which hinted at the nature of his product: nu Web site address,
>> and no words like "radar", "radiation", "detector" or "fine".
>> Combined with the fact that he routinely uses "borrowed", existing Dutch
>> and Belgian sender addresses this made it quite difficult to simply
>> filter him out.
>>
>>> I used to chase spammers, but it was becoming a full-time career, and
>>> not one I especially enjoyed, so I took more defensive measures instead.
>>
>> "Normal" business-to-business spammers (i.e. the ones who at least use
>> their own e-mail addresses) get one warning, after which abuse reports
>> are sent out; also, their domain is added to my mail server block list,
>> so their rubbish is refused without me even knowing about it. But that
>> doesn't work with forged sender addresses. And if there's no SPF record
>> for the sender domain, it really becomes quite hard to automatically
>> block this guy.
>>
>> Having said this, I usually don't have to go to these extreme lengths.
>> Most spam is handled just fine automatically, and only the persevering,
>> inventive and criminal types from the Dutch language region get my
>> special treatment -- because they're both the most annoying, and easiest
>> to track down and shut down.
>>
>> Richard Rasker
> 
> 
> Spam is simply not an issue for me. Why?
> 
> 1) gmail : excellent server side filtering
> 2) gnus and spamassassin/bogofilter (additionally or alternatively)
> 
> Dont want gmail? Fine. Using Linux systems you can configure fetchmail
> to call procmail which in turn can apply spam filters such as
> spamassassin and bogofilter and reroute your mail appropriately.
> 
> if you dont use fetchmail, e.g you use your own mail domain and have
> exim4 processing you can still use spamassassin with it : just bundle a
> few spam messages and then re-train spamassassin. I suspect it can be
> automated very very easily.
> 
> It makes much more sense to filter the spam when receiving rather
> allowing evolution to do it. You can browse the spam folders later if
> necessary.
> 
> Debian on an old machine like that makes a perfect
> mailserver/gateway. Have it run a Dovecot IMAP server and then you can
> access you filtered email from anywhere.

I /have/ an old Debian machine running Postfix + SpamAssassin + Courier
IMAP. And as I said, I usually don't have a spam problem at all -- perhaps
one or two spam messages per month make it past my filters (of the 5000+
spams offered to my server every day), and those are only Dutch spams,
apparently from companies who are not aware that spamming is illegal. So
spam filtering is very effective.

This guy I'm talking about is an exception. He is one of the very few
remaining Dutch spammers, and he's inventive enough to effectively defy
filtering. And apparently, he chose an ISP who didn't heed abuse reports --
even after a dozen or so abuse reports wrt the IP address he used, he was
still sending of spam through that address. Another reason for me to take
action is that this guy is not just a spammer, but also a scammer: he
offers useless gadgets for a lot of money.

Sure, I'm a bit idealistic, but then again, it actually makes a difference
if at least some people take action against these criminals. Not so long
ago, I contributed evidence to get other spammer-scammers convicted: those
assholes were sending out spam offering "work from home" (e.g. putting
stuff in boxes or wrappers), with a premium-rate phone number to call if
you were interested. In the end it turned out that there was no "work from
home" at all, and that interested workers (invariably poor, unemployed
people, single mothers and the likes) were kept on the phone for as long as
possible, and even told to "call again next week" because "we have enough
workers for now".
I managed to track down the people behind this scam, and offered the
information to the authorities -- who appreciated the extra evidence.
In the end, those guys were fined almost one million dollars.


About the Joe-job itself: there's little one can do about that, except
divert the stream of bounces etcetera to a separate folder. Refusing those
messages is no option, since I want to explain things to the people who
think I was the one sending spam.

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard 
Rasker wrote:

> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for what
> almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is, if
> this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing into
> hundreds of dollars.

Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device designed 
to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 19:02:40 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
> Richard Rasker wrote:
> 
>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam
>> for what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as
>> "Electro Smog Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding
>> tickets. Problem is, if this thing works, even posession of it is
>> illegal, with fines runing into hundreds of dollars.
> 
> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?

Let me guess, because then the citizens would only slow down when the
detector notified them of a radar speed trap? Modern speed traps
employ 2 radar devices (a few km apart) and then calculate your
average speed between them. Until cars have automatic speed limiting
the need for speed traps will remain.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
> Rasker wrote:
> 
>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
>> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is, if
>> this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing into
>> hundreds of dollars.
> 
> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?

I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid being
caught when breaking the law. People who don't break speed laws have no use
for such a device whatsoever. So these devices don't help people avoid
breaking the law, but on the contrary encourage them to break the law, by
reducing the chances of being caught. The only people buying it are those
who (intend to) break speed laws.

The old teacher's adage comes to mind: "You're allowed to cheat while taking
the test, as long as I don't catch you doing it." But in reality, the act
of cheating is forbidden, regardless of whether you're caught or not.

The DOJ's view here is that radar detectors are designed for the explicit
purpose of hindering the police in their efforts to catch offenders -- and
deliberately hindering the police is an offence in itself, regardless of
how and why it is done. In this particular case, being caught with a radar
detector carries a $400 fine, plus seizing of the device (another $1000),
and in some cases impounding of the vehicle for further technical
investigations (e.g. when there's a suspicion of concealed radar detector
antennas or other police evasion measures).

All this apart from the fact that the only reviews about this device(*) that
I could find with Google suggest that it doesn't work as advertized at all;
and especially the laser detector feature is a joke of course: even if it
works, your speed is actually registered the very moment you detect a
police speed laser, which further supports the notion that it's a scam.
Unless of course one believes in a sort of twisted justice, where it's OK to
scam people out of a 1000 dollars if they try to buy something to break the
law.

*: I won't help the s[p|c]ammer too much by providing a direct link here,
but Googling for "radiation information device" will get you there. Also, I
believe that this TV show "Fifth Gear" won't be particularly pleased to see
the name of one of their characters "borrowed" here.

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard 
Rasker wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
>> Rasker wrote:
>> 
>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
>>> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is,
>>> if this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing
>>> into hundreds of dollars.
>> 
>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
> 
> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid
> being caught when breaking the law.

On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law. Who 
could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the law?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
> Rasker wrote:
> 
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> 
>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>>>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
>>>> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is,
>>>> if this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing
>>>> into hundreds of dollars.
>>> 
>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>> 
>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid
>> being caught when breaking the law.
> 
> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law.
> Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the law?

You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first place.
The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law the moment
that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing when they know
they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle anything not nailed
down.

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
>> Rasker wrote:
>> 
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>>>>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
>>>>> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is,
>>>>> if this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing
>>>>> into hundreds of dollars.
>>>> 
>>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>>> 
>>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid
>>> being caught when breaking the law.
>> 
>> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law.
>> Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the law?
>
> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first place.
> The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law the moment
> that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
> it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing when they know
> they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle anything not nailed
> down.
>
> Richard Rasker

Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
approaching a lower speed area?

Hadron wrote:

> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
> 
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>>>>>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro
>>>>>> Smog Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets.
>>>>>> Problem is, if this thing works, even posession of it is illegal,
>>>>>> with fines runing into hundreds of dollars.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>>>> 
>>>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid
>>>> being caught when breaking the law.
>>> 
>>> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law.
>>> Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the
>>> law?
>>
>> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first
>> place. The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law
>> the moment that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference
>> whatsoever. it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing
>> when they know they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle
>> anything not nailed down.
>>
>> Richard Rasker
> 
> Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
> approaching a lower speed area?

No, they can't in any meaningful or reliable way. They merely tell you that
your speed is (about to be) measured -- and OK, that sometimes happens in
lower speed areas(*), but that's exactly why motorists have to read and
obey road signs.
And I believe that many electronic navigator devices nowadays offer the
option to warn a driver when the local maximum speed is exceeded, so no,
there's no good whatsoever to get a radar detector for this purpose, when a
navigator is both cheaper and does a far better job in this respect.

*: Here we have these very conspicuous radar poles when driving into town,
which measure and display your speed, to serve as a warning (they aren't
equipped with cameras).

All this means that there are virtually no legal uses for a radar detector.
In any case, you may argue as much as you like that these things shouldn't
be prohibited -- but they are, and for good reasons, in my opinion, as the
vast majority of people using them are notorious racers.

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

Richard Rasker pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
>>>
>>> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first
>>> place. The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law
>>> the moment that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference
>>> whatsoever. it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing
>>> when they know they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle
>>> anything not nailed down.
>> 
>> Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
>> approaching a lower speed area?

What!?  Is "Hadron" advocating being a traffic scofflaw!?!?!  :-D

> No, they can't in any meaningful or reliable way. They merely tell you that
> your speed is (about to be) measured -- and OK, that sometimes happens in
> lower speed areas(*), but that's exactly why motorists have to read and
> obey road signs.
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> All this means that there are virtually no legal uses for a radar detector.
> In any case, you may argue as much as you like that these things shouldn't
> be prohibited -- but they are, and for good reasons, in my opinion, as the
> vast majority of people using them are notorious racers.

I can confirm that "Hadron" is indeed a racer and scofflaw.  :-D

-- 
I can confirm that Andrew is indeed a hypocrite and freetard.
   -- "Hadron", "True Linux Advocate"

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:

> Richard Rasker pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
>>>>
>>>> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first
>>>> place. The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law
>>>> the moment that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference
>>>> whatsoever. it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing
>>>> when they know they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle
>>>> anything not nailed down.
>>> 
>>> Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
>>> approaching a lower speed area?
>
> What!?  Is "Hadron" advocating being a traffic scofflaw!?!?!  :-D
>
>> No, they can't in any meaningful or reliable way. They merely tell you that
>> your speed is (about to be) measured -- and OK, that sometimes happens in
>> lower speed areas(*), but that's exactly why motorists have to read and
>> obey road signs.
>>
>> <snip for brevity>
>>
>> All this means that there are virtually no legal uses for a radar detector.
>> In any case, you may argue as much as you like that these things shouldn't
>> be prohibited -- but they are, and for good reasons, in my opinion, as the
>> vast majority of people using them are notorious racers.
>
> I can confirm that "Hadron" is indeed a racer and scofflaw.  :-D


What are you talking about?

I don't even drive a car.

Hadron stated in post ifkmsd$d0c$3@news.eternal-september.org on 12/31/10
6:46 AM:

> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
> 
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> 
>>> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
>>> Rasker wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>>>>>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
>>>>>> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is,
>>>>>> if this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing
>>>>>> into hundreds of dollars.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>>>> 
>>>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid
>>>> being caught when breaking the law.
>>> 
>>> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law.
>>> Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the law?
>> 
>> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first place.
>> The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law the moment
>> that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
>> it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing when they know
>> they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle anything not nailed
>> down.
>> 
>> Richard Rasker
> 
> Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
> approaching a lower speed area?
> 
Can they?  Lower speed areas are not "marked" with any "hidden" signals like
this.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> Hadron stated in post ifkmsd$d0c$3@news.eternal-september.org on 12/31/10
> 6:46 AM:
>
>> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
>> 
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
>>>> Rasker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>>>>>>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
>>>>>>> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is,
>>>>>>> if this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing
>>>>>>> into hundreds of dollars.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>>>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid
>>>>> being caught when breaking the law.
>>>> 
>>>> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law.
>>>> Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the law?
>>> 
>>> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first place.
>>> The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law the moment
>>> that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
>>> it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing when they know
>>> they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle anything not nailed
>>> down.
>>> 
>>> Richard Rasker
>> 
>> Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
>> approaching a lower speed area?
>> 
> Can they?  Lower speed areas are not "marked" with any "hidden" signals like
> this.

Where do you think electronic devices to record your speeding are
positioned?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ifkkuf$n56$3@lust.ihug.co.nz on 12/31/10
6:13 AM:

> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
> Rasker wrote:
> 
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> 
>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
>>> Rasker wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>>>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
>>>> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is,
>>>> if this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing
>>>> into hundreds of dollars.
>>> 
>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>> 
>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid
>> being caught when breaking the law.
> 
> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law. Who
> could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the law?

It does not stop people from breaking the law, it allows them to do so with
less risk of being caught.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron stated in post ifksuq$256$2@news.eternal-september.org on 12/31/10
8:30 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> Hadron stated in post ifkmsd$d0c$3@news.eternal-september.org on 12/31/10
>> 6:46 AM:
>> 
>>> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>, Richard
>>>>> Rasker wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam for
>>>>>>>> what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as "Electro Smog
>>>>>>>> Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding tickets. Problem is,
>>>>>>>> if this thing works, even posession of it is illegal, with fines runing
>>>>>>>> into hundreds of dollars.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>>>>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to avoid
>>>>>> being caught when breaking the law.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law.
>>>>> Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the law?
>>>> 
>>>> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first place.
>>>> The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law the moment
>>>> that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
>>>> it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing when they know
>>>> they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle anything not nailed
>>>> down.
>>>> 
>>>> Richard Rasker
>>> 
>>> Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
>>> approaching a lower speed area?
>>> 
>> Can they?  Lower speed areas are not "marked" with any "hidden" signals like
>> this.
> 
> Where do you think electronic devices to record your speeding are
> positioned?

Places where the police think people are likely to speed - often at the
bottom of hills in my neck of the woods.  The speed limit is not slower
there, but people have a tendency to speed up as they go down the hills.
Also in residential areas, but not generally right when the slower speed
starts... they are actually pretty good about not trying to catch folks
right after a speed reduction.  That is in my area, of course.  Could be
different elsewhere.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:

> Hadron stated in post ifksuq$256$2@news.eternal-september.org on 12/31/10
> 8:30 AM:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Hadron stated in post ifkmsd$d0c$3@news.eternal-september.org on
>>> 12/31/10 6:46 AM:
>>> 
>>>> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam
>>>>>>>>> for what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as
>>>>>>>>> "Electro Smog Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding
>>>>>>>>> tickets. Problem is, if this thing works, even posession of it is
>>>>>>>>> illegal, with fines runing into hundreds of dollars.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>>>>>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to
>>>>>>> avoid being caught when breaking the law.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the
>>>>>> law. Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking
>>>>>> the law?
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first
>>>>> place. The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law
>>>>> the moment that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference
>>>>> whatsoever. it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing
>>>>> when they know they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle
>>>>> anything not nailed down.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Richard Rasker
>>>> 
>>>> Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
>>>> approaching a lower speed area?
>>>> 
>>> Can they?  Lower speed areas are not "marked" with any "hidden" signals
>>> like this.
>> 
>> Where do you think electronic devices to record your speeding are
>> positioned?
> 
> Places where the police think people are likely to speed - often at the
> bottom of hills in my neck of the woods.  The speed limit is not slower
> there, but people have a tendency to speed up as they go down the hills.
> Also in residential areas, but not generally right when the slower speed
> starts... they are actually pretty good about not trying to catch folks
> right after a speed reduction.  That is in my area, of course.  Could be
> different elsewhere.

We're a bit underendowed in the hill department over here, so that's not
really applicable. Here, favourite places for speed checks are locations
where road work is in progress (and thus the normal speed limit is
lowered), and generally along "inviting" but treacherous stretches of road,
such as straight roads in the countryside with occasional hard-to-spot side
roads.

Especially the latter I can appreciate, as I'm often riding my bike there,
and I hate it when those speeding assholes whizz by with speeds up to 70 or
80 mph, with only inches to spare.

And indeed, the police "play fair" by not setting up speed checks right
after the 30mph sign at the town's entry roads.

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

Richard Rasker stated in post
4d1e039d$0$726$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net on 12/31/10 9:23 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Hadron stated in post ifksuq$256$2@news.eternal-september.org on 12/31/10
>> 8:30 AM:
>> 
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Hadron stated in post ifkmsd$d0c$3@news.eternal-september.org on
>>>> 12/31/10 6:46 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In message <4d1dcf00$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In message <4d1b6934$0$728$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>>>>>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It all started some two years ago. I received quite a bit of spam
>>>>>>>>>> for what almost certainly is a scam: a $1000 gadget, sold as
>>>>>>>>>> "Electro Smog Detector", but in reality meant to avoid speeding
>>>>>>>>>> tickets. Problem is, if this thing works, even posession of it is
>>>>>>>>>> illegal, with fines runing into hundreds of dollars.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Why is your Government so vindictive, that it would outlaw a device
>>>>>>>>> designed to allow citizens to _avoid_ breaking the law?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I beg to differ. These devices are used for one purpose only: to
>>>>>>>> avoid being caught when breaking the law.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the
>>>>>>> law. Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking
>>>>>>> the law?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You have to slow down only if you were breaking the law in the first
>>>>>> place. The fact that these devices enable you to stop breaking the law
>>>>>> the moment that you're about to get caught doesn't make any difference
>>>>>> whatsoever. it's like defending thieves who only refrain from stealing
>>>>>> when they know they're being watched, but for all the rest snaffle
>>>>>> anything not nailed down.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Richard Rasker
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did it never cross your mind that these things can warn you when
>>>>> approaching a lower speed area?
>>>>> 
>>>> Can they?  Lower speed areas are not "marked" with any "hidden" signals
>>>> like this.
>>> 
>>> Where do you think electronic devices to record your speeding are
>>> positioned?
>> 
>> Places where the police think people are likely to speed - often at the
>> bottom of hills in my neck of the woods.  The speed limit is not slower
>> there, but people have a tendency to speed up as they go down the hills.
>> Also in residential areas, but not generally right when the slower speed
>> starts... they are actually pretty good about not trying to catch folks
>> right after a speed reduction.  That is in my area, of course.  Could be
>> different elsewhere.
> 
> We're a bit underendowed in the hill department over here, so that's not
> really applicable. Here, favourite places for speed checks are locations
> where road work is in progress (and thus the normal speed limit is
> lowered), and generally along "inviting" but treacherous stretches of road,
> such as straight roads in the countryside with occasional hard-to-spot side
> roads.
> 
> Especially the latter I can appreciate, as I'm often riding my bike there,
> and I hate it when those speeding assholes whizz by with speeds up to 70 or
> 80 mph, with only inches to spare.
> 
> And indeed, the police "play fair" by not setting up speed checks right
> after the 30mph sign at the town's entry roads.

Makes sense.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:39:28 +0100, Richard Rasker wrote:

> The DOJ's view here is that radar detectors are designed for the
> explicit purpose of hindering the police in their efforts to catch
> offenders...

Yeah, and driving 10 to 15 MPH faster than the speed limit on open 
freeways is really dangerous, isn't it? The real problem with people 
avoiding tickets is that it cuts into the money making racket. A few years 
ago, when I lived in California, the California Highway Patrol wanted some 
kind benefits that seemed pretty reasonable to me. California wouldn't do 
it, so instead of going on strike or calling in sick (the "blue flu" as it 
was once called) they simply quit writing tickets. They operated as 
normal, pulled people over who were speeding -- everything they normally 
did -- they just didn't write tickets. In a few days they had their 
benefits.  

And why in the hell is the DOJ even involved in a state's highway laws? 
This has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Justice. We're 
becoming more and more a country of jackbooted thugs, like the Gestapo or 
KGB -- and people seem to be saying "Yeah, I like this, abuse me."

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

RonB wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:39:28 +0100, Richard Rasker wrote:
> 
>> The DOJ's view here is that radar detectors are designed for the
>> explicit purpose of hindering the police in their efforts to catch
>> offenders...
> 
> Yeah, and driving 10 to 15 MPH faster than the speed limit on open
> freeways is really dangerous, isn't it? The real problem with people
> avoiding tickets is that it cuts into the money making racket. A few years
> ago, when I lived in California, the California Highway Patrol wanted some
> kind benefits that seemed pretty reasonable to me. California wouldn't do
> it, so instead of going on strike or calling in sick (the "blue flu" as it
> was once called) they simply quit writing tickets. They operated as
> normal, pulled people over who were speeding -- everything they normally
> did -- they just didn't write tickets. In a few days they had their
> benefits.
> 
> And why in the hell is the DOJ even involved in a state's highway laws?
> This has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Justice. We're
> becoming more and more a country of jackbooted thugs, like the Gestapo or
> KGB -- and people seem to be saying "Yeah, I like this, abuse me."

The problem is that you have to draw the line somewhere. If, for instance, 
transgressions of 10mph are allowed, then a 30mph speed limit is in effect
a 40mph speed limit, and everyone will behave accordingly.
And especially in this small, overcrowded country, speeding and speed
differences in the traffic flow increase the likelihood of accidents,
traffic jams, pollution, noise and CO2 emissions.
Sure, a few mph to fast isn't much of a problem usually, but then again, the
fines are accordingly mild in those cases. Also, a correction of several
mph is detracted from the measured speed, to allow for the tolerance in
speedometers etcetera.

Also, most people don't realize at all that the relationship between speed
and the amount of energy involved is squared, not linear -- and this also
goes for breaking distance, energy consumption, and noise, pollution, and
any impact damage. Actually, air resistance increases even more with speed:
the air friction isn't proportional to the speed squared, but to the power
of three of the speed. So discouraging speeding is a good thing in almost
all respects -- especially when the time gain of speeding is only marginal,
in the order of a few minutes for most commuters.

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:

> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the
> law. Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking
> the law?

So you're advocating breaking the law, but only when you can get away
with it? And naturally there would be no negative consequences to that,
such as failing to stop in time to avoid a collision, and causing death
and injury?

Do you happen to know the stopping distance for a car travelling at
60mph, including thinking and reaction time? The DfT estimates it at
over 400ft. How much detail of your surroundings do you suppose you're
actually aware of, travelling at 60mph, in a built-up area, that you can
see clearly at 400ft?

Do cars come fitted with moving object proximity sensors as well?

Cars only really need one sort of sensor: a stupidity detector.
Currently the best one on the market is called a driving license,
although sadly it's far from foolproof.

-- 
K.                           | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org            | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | ignorant twits who know nothing
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 7 days   | about GNU/Linux."

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:22:36 +0100, Richard Rasker wrote:

> The problem is that you have to draw the line somewhere. If, for
> instance, transgressions of 10mph are allowed, then a 30mph speed limit
> is in effect a 40mph speed limit, and everyone will behave accordingly.
> And especially in this small, overcrowded country, speeding and speed
> differences in the traffic flow increase the likelihood of accidents,
> traffic jams, pollution, noise and CO2 emissions. Sure, a few mph to
> fast isn't much of a problem usually, but then again, the fines are
> accordingly mild in those cases. Also, a correction of several mph is
> detracted from the measured speed, to allow for the tolerance in
> speedometers etcetera.

The line used to be drawn (in California) at the "flow of traffic." In 
other words (on the freeways) if the "flow of traffic" was 70 miles per 
hour -- even though the speed limit was 55 -- then no one got a ticket for 
going 70 miles per hour. People could (and did) actually get tickets for 
impeding the flow of traffic, even if they were driving the posted speed 
limit. 

Unlike the Netherlands, the United States is not a small, overcrowded 
country. Most of my life I've lived in the western United States where two 
towns can be 350 miles apart. You've got a four lane, divided freeway  
between them, but for a while, the speed limit was a Federally mandated 55 
miles per hour. Completely absurd and unworkable. 

As for CO2 emissions, quite bluntly, it's all bullshit. Human emissions of 
CO2 are minuscule compared to natural CO2 emissions -- not even as large 
as natural, year-to-year variations. And CO2 is not a poison, the more 
CO2, the more plants thrive.  
 
> Also, most people don't realize at all that the relationship between
> speed and the amount of energy involved is squared, not linear -- and
> this also goes for breaking distance, energy consumption, and noise,
> pollution, and any impact damage. Actually, air resistance increases
> even more with speed: the air friction isn't proportional to the speed
> squared, but to the power of three of the speed. So discouraging
> speeding is a good thing in almost all respects -- especially when the
> time gain of speeding is only marginal, in the order of a few minutes
> for most commuters.

Pollution may be a factor in the few overcrowded metro areas in this 
country (especially those in "bowls" where wind can't clear it out) but 
it's simply not an issue in most of the United States. Nor is CO2 
emissions from vehicles. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

RonB stated in post ifli9e$jh3$1@news.eternal-september.org on 12/31/10 2:34
PM:

> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:22:36 +0100, Richard Rasker wrote:
> 
>> The problem is that you have to draw the line somewhere. If, for
>> instance, transgressions of 10mph are allowed, then a 30mph speed limit
>> is in effect a 40mph speed limit, and everyone will behave accordingly.
>> And especially in this small, overcrowded country, speeding and speed
>> differences in the traffic flow increase the likelihood of accidents,
>> traffic jams, pollution, noise and CO2 emissions. Sure, a few mph to
>> fast isn't much of a problem usually, but then again, the fines are
>> accordingly mild in those cases. Also, a correction of several mph is
>> detracted from the measured speed, to allow for the tolerance in
>> speedometers etcetera.
> 
> The line used to be drawn (in California) at the "flow of traffic." In
> other words (on the freeways) if the "flow of traffic" was 70 miles per
> hour -- even though the speed limit was 55 -- then no one got a ticket for
> going 70 miles per hour. People could (and did) actually get tickets for
> impeding the flow of traffic, even if they were driving the posted speed
> limit. 
> 
> Unlike the Netherlands, the United States is not a small, overcrowded
> country. Most of my life I've lived in the western United States where two
> towns can be 350 miles apart. You've got a four lane, divided freeway
> between them, but for a while, the speed limit was a Federally mandated 55
> miles per hour. Completely absurd and unworkable.
> 
> As for CO2 emissions, quite bluntly, it's all bullshit. Human emissions of
> CO2 are minuscule compared to natural CO2 emissions -- not even as large
> as natural, year-to-year variations. And CO2 is not a poison, the more
> CO2, the more plants thrive.

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-cosub2sub-e
missions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html> OR <http://goo.gl/JNb0d>

Your claims about CO2 are simply not in accordance with the known data.

>> Also, most people don't realize at all that the relationship between
>> speed and the amount of energy involved is squared, not linear -- and
>> this also goes for breaking distance, energy consumption, and noise,
>> pollution, and any impact damage. Actually, air resistance increases
>> even more with speed: the air friction isn't proportional to the speed
>> squared, but to the power of three of the speed. So discouraging
>> speeding is a good thing in almost all respects -- especially when the
>> time gain of speeding is only marginal, in the order of a few minutes
>> for most commuters.
> 
> Pollution may be a factor in the few overcrowded metro areas in this
> country (especially those in "bowls" where wind can't clear it out) but
> it's simply not an issue in most of the United States. Nor is CO2
> emissions from vehicles.

I would love to see you try to support this.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Pollution may be a factor in the few overcrowded metro areas in this 
> country (especially those in "bowls" where wind can't clear it out) but 
> it's simply not an issue in most of the United States. Nor is CO2 
> emissions from vehicles. 

What is sulfur dioxide, then?  Chopped liver?  :-)

-- 
Linux!  Guerrilla UNIX Development     Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus.
(By mah@ka4ybr.com, Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:27:44 +0000, Homer wrote:


> Do cars come fitted with moving object proximity sensors as well?

Some do.
Volvo for example.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:44:48 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
>> Pollution may be a factor in the few overcrowded metro areas in this 
>> country (especially those in "bowls" where wind can't clear it out) but 
>> it's simply not an issue in most of the United States. Nor is CO2 
>> emissions from vehicles. 
> 
> What is sulfur dioxide, then?  Chopped liver?  :-)

I you eat enough of it yes.
Especially when mixed with beer.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:27:44 +0000, Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
> 
>> On the contrary, when you slow down you are no longer breaking the law.
>> Who could possibly object to a device that stops people breaking the
>> law?
> 
> So you're advocating breaking the law, but only when you can get away
> with it? And naturally there would be no negative consequences to that,
> such as failing to stop in time to avoid a collision, and causing death
> and injury?
> 
> Do you happen to know the stopping distance for a car travelling at
> 60mph, including thinking and reaction time? The DfT estimates it at
> over 400ft. How much detail of your surroundings do you suppose you're
> actually aware of, travelling at 60mph, in a built-up area, that you can
> see clearly at 400ft?
> 
> Do cars come fitted with moving object proximity sensors as well?
> 
> Cars only really need one sort of sensor: a stupidity detector.
> Currently the best one on the market is called a driving license,
> although sadly it's far from foolproof.

As citizens, the reason we supposedly have traffic laws is to protect the 
people, not to enhance the government's revenue stream. Speed limits 
should be reasonable for the road conditions and the traffic congestion in 
the area. Freeways in the middle of Los Angeles, for example, should have 
a lower speed limit than freeways in the middle of Wyoming. Arbitrarily 
setting the speed limit to, say, 65 miles per hour on a four lane, divided 
highway in areas of the country where it's routinely 200 miles between 
towns, is asinine. Sorry, but "it's the law" arguments don't work for me 
when the law is unreasonable. And, in the western United States, the 55 
mile per hour speed limit (that all states had for a while) was illegally 
mandated by the Federal government -- which, let's be blunt, has no 
fucking right to mandate state highway laws. So "it's the law" has to be 
tempered with common sense. I'm sure, for example, Stalin murdered 
millions "lawfully" or Communist China (and even the good old USA) hold 
dissidents "lawfully" (extreme examples), but these are the kind of things 
the "it's the law" mentality eventually results in accepting.   

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:44:48 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
>> Pollution may be a factor in the few overcrowded metro areas in this
>> country (especially those in "bowls" where wind can't clear it out) but
>> it's simply not an issue in most of the United States. Nor is CO2
>> emissions from vehicles.
> 
> What is sulfur dioxide, then?  Chopped liver?  :-)

Inconsequential for almost all the country -- except, as mentioned, for a 
few very congested metro areas in natural "bowls."

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:44:48 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> 
>>> Pollution may be a factor in the few overcrowded metro areas in this
>>> country (especially those in "bowls" where wind can't clear it out) but
>>> it's simply not an issue in most of the United States. Nor is CO2
>>> emissions from vehicles.
>> 
>> What is sulfur dioxide, then?  Chopped liver?  :-)
>
> Inconsequential for almost all the country -- except, as mentioned, for a 
> few very congested metro areas in natural "bowls."

I dunno about that, Ron.  I live in a non-bowl, less congested area, and
some days, coming over the bridge and looking at the landscape in front of
me, with smokestacks, a gray/brown horizon, ... it looks some something out
of the Jurassic Age.

Some days I walk outside, take a deep breath, and say "Ahhhh, just like
L.A.!"

Probably unrelated, but I had a white Jetta once, and something in the air
ate at the paint, giving it a slight sand-papery texture.

-- 
There are 3 types of guys -- the ones who hate nerds (all nerds, that
is; girls aren't let off the hook); the ones who are scared off by girls
who are slightly more intelligent than average; and the guys who are
also somewhat more intelligent than average, but are so shy that they
can't put 2 words together when they're within 20 feet of a girl.
		-- Vikki Roemer on debian-curiosa