Conference noted::compuserve

    Is there still a way to disable incoming Internet mail? (It used to be
    possible).
    
    As I don't really need it (I only visit a couple of forums, I never use
    C$ for mail) I could just disable it to get rid of all the junk mail
    (whose amount seems to exponentially increase). In the very rare cases
    I receive non-junk mail it's Compuserve internal anyway (and should I
    ever receive junk mail internally, I'd have a much better position to
    complain).

    There used to be a method way back when incoming Email from the
    internet set you back 10� a pop.
    
    In the mail settings menue there is a three way switch, receive, warn
    or refuse postage due mail.
    
    I don't know if it is still operational.
    
    Jamie.

    re .24: Thanks, I eventually found it (GO MAILSET) - couln't find the
    right way through the menus.
    
    There's only a choice for disabling/enabling Internet mail completely.
    Rather stupid in that it will prevent you from sending also, but not a
    big deal in my case 'cause I never use it anyway (and if I want to use
    it, I can always enable it again).
    
    At least I couldn't _send_ anymore (already tested). Let's see if my
    test messages sent to the account bounce back (and with what error...).

    Interesting..
    
    The mail I sent to my "new" address bounced back. CompuServe's
    postmaster actually sent to replies - the first one just says "Delivery
    report for message to ora" and has all the Internet headers and
    postmarks and the original message. It doesn't say anywhere if/what
    failed.
    
    The second message doesn't have the headers, but has the following as
    text:
    
    Message "test", sent at 08:12 EST on 29-Jan-97, could not be delivered
    to ora at 08:13 EST on 29-Jan-97 because the recipient will not accept
    messages from internet.
    
    However, mails sent to the old-style address ([email protected])
    just seem to go into a black hole... they don't seem to arrive, neither
    do they bounce back. Bug or feature?
    

    >However, mails sent to the old-style address ([email protected])
    >just seem to go into a black hole... they don't seem to arrive, neither
    >do they bounce back. Bug or feature?

    Well a while back there was a massive mailing of junk mail, the idiot
    who did it just incremented the address in the hope that it would hit
    all of CompuServe customers. Alas he didn't know that the numbers are
    in octal, not decimal. This must have caused a fair bit of traffic
    replying to all the addresses that contained an 8 or a 9 in the number.

    So perhaps it is deliberate.

    Jamie.
        

    
    �Well a while back there was a massive mailing of junk mail, the idiot
    �who did it just incremented the address in the hope that it would hit
    
    Well I'm received that kind of junk mail regularly... (though it seems
    the spammers have learnt octal by now). That's why I wanted to disable
    Internet mail in the first place.
    
    You migh be right that it's a feature. I wish I could just disable the
    numeric address, not the new one.

�.28 I wish I could just disable the numeric address, not the new one.
    
    Ora,
    
    Do read in the above line that personal names can be used in Europe
    (Germany)? 
    
    I tried sending mail to my account (in the UK) last week, using my
    personal name, and it bounced back. :-(
    
    Martin.

    re .29: Yes - mine has worked for some time now.
    
    Have you done "GO NEWMAIL"?
    

�.29 Have you done "GO NEWMAIL"? 
    
     No, but I will when I get home in two weeks time.
    
     Martin.

    I'm not sure, but I think I did it explicitely, and that you have to do
    it to actually enable the new address.
    

    You have to do it (GO NEWMAIL) explicitly.
    
    Apparantly they found some incompatabilities between the "old mail"
    system and the new mail system and they require you to explicitly
    switch over (and it'll tell you the issues involved I think).
    
    	db

    Well, I asked Compuserve's customer service the same question as in
    .23, about the same time (give or take a few minutes).
    
    I got the reply today (only took them three days) saying that
    unfortunately, it is not possible to disable Internet mail...
    
    Arrggghhh!
    

    You must explicitly go newmail to enable the non numeric addressing
    system. However once you have done that you may not use the terminal
    emulator to work the mail.

    Jamie.

    JUNK E-MAIL 

    Online users who hate "junk" e-mail got a break from two federal court
    rulings against a Philadelphia company. A federal judge in Columbus,
    Ohio on Monday barred Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending unsolicited
    e-mail advertisements -- better known among computer buffs as
    "spamming" -- to CompuServe's 5 million subscribers. On Tuesday, a
    federal judge in Philadelphia forbid the bulk e-mailer from falsifying
    return e-mail addresses, which kept America Online members from
    blocking the unsolicited messages. And AOL said the court order will
    prevent Cyber Promotions from circumventing a tool available to AOL
    members designed to block junk e-mail. 
   

    I'm all for almost anything that bars unsolicted e-mail and probably
    ANYTHING that bars telephone solicitation.
    
    Telephone solicitation is like a TV commercial that knows how to turn
    the set on even if you have it off!   It should be illegal IMHO.
    
    I might even go so far as to use my "caller ID" feature to report
    phone numbers to the phone company.   Sure, it's not illegal to
    solicit by telephone, but it IS illegal to do so from a phone
    that is subscribed at the "residential" (non-business) rate, and
    most telephone solicitors are "work at home" types.
    
    That is illegal: it's called fraud.
    
    	db

    The instant you realise that is is a telephone solicitation call,
    usually detectable in the first few seconds, simply put the handset
    back on the rest. Make no attempt to engage in conversation just hang
    up fast.

    If they phone back repeat the procedure, but after they have
    disconnected remove the handset and lay it on the table for few
    minutes.

    They will soon move on to the next sucker.

    An alternative is to hand the phone to a five year old child.

    Jamie.

    >The instant you realise that is is a telephone solicitation call,
    >usually detectable in the first few seconds, simply put the handset
    >back on the rest. Make no attempt to engage in conversation just hang
    >up fast.
    
    Jamie,
    
    Continuing my analog of phone solicitations with television commercials
    that turn the TV on, what you are suggesting is next time a TV
    commercial flips the set on, "just turn it off".
    
    May I presume that you wouldn't be very happy with that solution?  ;-)
    
    	db

    I'd have thought with a TV you just change channels.
    
    Pete

    I don't really see the connection, in one case you have to get up, lift
    the phone to answer it, so it is a simple task to replace the receiver.

    If an annoying commercial comes on I usually just reach for the remote
    and flip the sound off for the duration.

    Telephones and TVs exist to serve me, not the other way round.

    Jamie.

    >I don't really see the connection, in one case you have to get up,
    >lift the phone to answer it, so it is a simple task to replace the
    >receiver.
    
    >If an annoying commercial comes on I usually just reach for the remote
    >and flip the sound off for the duration.
    
    I think you may have missed a key part of my statement:
    
    	"Telephone solicitation is like a TV commercial that knows 
    	 how to turn the set on even if you have it off!"
    			       -----------------------
    
    Is your remote always within reach when you are not watching?
    
    In BOTH cases, you have to "get up" and take some action.  
    
    Do you see the connection now?
    
    	db

    No

    Well, hopefully you can understand that for large numbers of the "rest
    of us", neither the phone nor the TV remote is always within reach
    and that we feel we shouldn't HAVE to turn the TV back off nor answer
    the phone anytime someone decides they want to sell us something.
    
    ;-)

    re .44: Dave, the houses/apartments in Europe tend to be smaller than
    in US, so we always have everything within reach without getting up... 
    ;-)

    re: .-1
    
    Oh... I understand now.  ;-)
    
    Perhaps there's a better way to articulate my thoughts.
    
    In my opinion, advertising should generally be "passive"
    
    	passive (p�s�v) adjective
    	1.	Receiving or subjected to an action without responding or
    		initiating an action in return.
    	2.	Accepting or submitting without objection or resistance; 
    		compliant.
    
    Whether or not you understand the analogy with TV ads that turn the set
    on boils down (I guess) to whether or not you think a phone
    solicitaiton or such a TV ad  are comparable to other forms of
    advertising in terms of being "passive".
    
    My opinion is that they are obviously not, but apparantly there are others 
    (Mr. Anderson for example)  who think they are comparable.
    
    	db

    The real problem, Dave, is that your analogy is a bad one. TV ads do
    not 'turn your TV set on' but then somebody phoning you does not 'turn
    the phone on'. If your phone is not plugged in then nobody can phone
    you. If your set is not plugged in then you can't receive TV ads or TV
    programs.
    
    Cheers,
    Brian

>    The real problem, Dave, is that your analogy is a bad one. TV ads do
>    not 'turn your TV set on'  
    
    And pigs don't fly, but that doesn't mean that drawing an analogy to a
    hypothetical case is automatically "bad".
    
    >but then somebody phoning you does not 'turn the phone on'. 
    
    >If your phone is not plugged in then nobody can phone you. 
    
    This seems like a pointless observation unless you are willing to
    suggest that if you don't want to receive telephone ads you have to
    give up other usage of the phone (non-ad phone calls, such as emergency
    calls from family members).
    
    Are you prepared to suggest that as a reasonable solution to people who
    don't want to receive phone solicitations?
    
    Please re-read my note about "passive" vs "non-passive" advertisement.
    
    I'd rather not enter a debate as to whether a ringing telephone can be
    said to be "on" in some applicable sense, other than to say
    that like a TV that turns on by itself, it can wake you up from your
    sleep, interrupt you from what you're doing, generally annoy you and
    usually requires some sort of non-passive action.
    
    That is the point of the analogy.
    
    	db

    >    re .44: Dave, the houses/apartments in Europe tend to be smaller than
    >in US, so we always have everything within reach without getting up... 
    >;-)

    Actually my lounge it 14 meters by 4.7 meters (45.5 feet by 15.25 feet).

    In total we have over 300 square meters (3,170 square feet) of floor
    space.

    Mind you we live in neither a house or a apartment, we live on a farm. 

    Jamie.
          

    AP 27-Feb-1997 1:01 EST   REF5674

    Copyright 1997. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    Thursday, Feb. 27, 1997
   
    E-MAIL ADS 

    CARSON CITY, Nevada (AP) -- Nevada could be the first state to bar
    unsolicited electronic mail advertising under a bill being considered
    by lawmakers. The measure would make it a misdemeanor to send
    unsolicited ads directly to e-mail accounts. State Senate Majority
    leader Bill Raggio said the bill was modeled on a previous measure that
    prohibits unsolicited advertising over fax machines. California,
    Virginia and Connecticut are all considering similar e-mail advertising
    bans. 
   
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the fact that the Internet is accessible outside Nevada one can
    but wonder how they intend to enforce this law.

    Jamie.

    This sounds interesting.
    
    If its illegal for someone in the state of Nevada to send unsolicited
    e-mail, then that eliminates a few abusers.  If they could similarly
    inforce a law forbidding sending unsolicited e-mail *into* the state,
    they could likely inforce that for anyone attempting to do so from
    anywhere within the U.S.  If we could get all (or at least most) of the
    states to pass similar laws, that only leaves us open to unsoliticited
    e-mail from the rest of the world! ;-)
    
    - stp
    
    p.s.  Clearly, a better day is coming!

    OK so all 50 states pass laws banning junk e-mail from the internet. So
    your junk mail sender merely sets a machine outside the USA and uses it
    to send junk E-mail. There will be a slight delay in the delivery that
    is all.

    When will it get through the heads of American legislators that the
    internet is international and they cannot pass laws to limit its use.

    Jamie.

Well, at least it's a start.  Unlikely to be useful, but a start.

I wonder if it could be made illegal for a company trades in XXX jurisdiction 
to send, or commission a third party to send, junk email?

regards,
//alan

    >Well, at least it's a start.  Unlikely to be useful, but a start.

    About as useful as King Canute's decree that the tide should not come
    in.

    >I wonder if it could be made illegal for a company trades in XXX
    >jurisdiction  to send, or commission a third party to send, junk email?

    Interesting point. I own company A, my competitor is company B. I setup
    a Internet access outside the USA and bombard people with junk mail
    promoting company B's products, naturally I fake the address so that it
    looks like it comes directly from company B.

    Company B is now up to its eyeballs in legal problems and goes under.
    As you say, it's a start, but a start of what?

    Jamie.

    Interesting point. I own company A, my competitor is company B. I setup
    a Internet access outside the USA and bombard people with junk mail
    promoting company B's products, naturally I fake the address so that it
    looks like it comes directly from company B.

    Company B is now up to its eyeballs in legal problems and goes under.
    As you say, it's a start, but a start of what?

Well, can't exactly the same be done today with junk faxes?  Just set
the fax machine's 'from' string to be your competitor's phone number and
start sending those faxes (CLID withheld, of course...)

regards,
//alan

    The call could be easily traced and if you were not outside the USA,
    you could be prosecuted. Also one junk fax costs one telephone call,
    expensive if it is an international call. Whereas internet junk Email
    is the same price no matter where you send it, and can be made almost
    totally untraceable. 

    Jamie.