Softlayer spamming? Re: [squeak-dev] Squeak Oversight Board meeting - 7/16/12

" If they ARE guilty of spamming however, I suggest that nuking them from orbit would not be too harsh a response :)."

Yea gotta love a guy who quotes "Aliens". I'm more than happy with your desire to punish them for their transgressions, as long as you identify the server they are going to give us for free, and leave it running.

Burke: 'Hold on a second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.'

Ripley: 'They can bill me.'

To take your argument to its ultimate, you're asking Squeak, the SOB, and me to be the conscience of the Internet. OK, fine. Let's say that we have to be the conscience of the Internet. Well... what happens to the children?

We are part of the Etoys project, which is involved with the education of a million little boys and girls around the world. Aren't they worth the mild inconvenience of a spam message or two?

Please, Tom... won't you think of the children?

Chris

Hi All,

On 12/07/17 09:38, Chris Cunnington wrote:
> " If they ARE guilty of spamming however, I suggest that nuking them
> from orbit would not be too harsh a response :)."
>
> Yea gotta love a guy who quotes "Aliens". I'm more than happy with your
> desire to punish them for their transgressions, as long as you identify
> the server they are going to give us for free, and leave it running.

I'm not into punishment (despite the quote :) ), I just don't believe in
supporting spammers if there's an alternative.  I think you're jumping
ahead of me...

1) We don't even know if this _is_ spam yet.  I've been haphazardly
looking for a hosting service for the last year, this could have been
something targeted at my address because I visited some website that I
no longer even remember.  (Like you said, a coincidence.)  That's why
the "?" in the subject line of my email, and why I quoted their subject
line - to see if anyone else is getting the same "spam-like" message.

>
> Burke: 'Hold on a second. This installation has a substantial dollar
> value attached to it.'
>
> Ripley: 'They can bill me.'
>
2) Your original email about the board meeting said:

   "There are several offers for free hosting available to Squeak"

So, _if_ others are getting this same spam-like message and it really is
from Softlayer (i.e. not a Joe Job), that's a good reason to look at the
other offers, and discount the Softlayer one.
>
> To take your argument to its ultimate, you're asking Squeak, the SOB,
> and me to be the conscience of the Internet. OK, fine. Let's say that we
> have to be the conscience of the Internet. Well... what happens to the
> children?

They don't end up supporting spammers and maybe receiving spam from the
Squeak web hosting provider ?  :).

(And just to make it clear, my comment above is meant to be funny, and
not taken seriously.)
>
> We are part of the Etoys project, which is involved with the education
> of a million little boys and girls around the world. Aren't they worth
> the mild inconvenience of a spam message or two?
>
> Please, Tom... won't you think of the children?

Gotta love someone whose sees my quote and raises me another :).
Although, when you think about some of the things that phrase has been
used to justify, you don't end up in the best of company :).
>
>
> Chris

Regards,


--
Tom Rushworth