Comments on: Splat! Frog Flattened On Internet’s Spamway: Blue Security’s Final Words

by: gunslinger

Mon, 22 May 2006 10:14:15 +0000

BS, Blue Frog, what a bunch of chicken…..! You got me interested, I bought your line of crap, hook, line, and sinker. Where did it get me? Not so much as an email from you stating you were closing down. I had to go online and search until I had found out what had happened. You brag you had over a half million subscribers of which I was one. You let us all down. Your community is pissed, you sucked us in and then dropped us like a rock. Now my emails are again junk, enlarge your PP, buy meds, etc. This russian spammer made you roll over and play dead. Where is you balls? You never cared about your BS community, I am appalled that you quit as easily as you did. You used us!! For that, well for that I hope you never find and capital to start another venture again. How much money did you line your pockets with before you had the balls to run and hide. In my eyes BS is now no better then the bs that they are now trying to peddle on us. You turned your back on the community you started, how dare you try and explain it all away. You bunch of wimps, how dare you walk away with out so much as a email to your community. My trust in the BS has been shattered. Thanks a lot BS, thanks a lot!!!!

by: Jones

Fri, 19 May 2006 16:06:16 +0000

The last thing we need is government intervention. Give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile. There’s nothing politicians would like better than control of the internet. A perfect opportunity for another bureacracy full of un-elected control freaks regulating our personal lives because, after all, they know better than we do. You’ll long for the good old days, replete with spam, if the feds ever get that kind of power.

by: Spamkil

Fri, 19 May 2006 15:29:59 +0000

To say that Blue Security was doing anything like a Dos or DDos is twisted. That a spammer should receive an opt out email for every piece of spam that they send to somebody who doesn’t want it is only ethical. If the volume of opt out requests is excessive in this one for one situation then just maybe the spammer should consider using the opt out list. Blue Security was a very nice answer to ethically control spam. The attack by spammers on ISPs was nothing short of terrorism. Too bad that governments don’t view disruption of communications by punk spammers to be something that they should help to stop.

by: farmboy

Fri, 19 May 2006 12:37:35 +0000

I’m against spam like everybody else. And I don’t have much opinion either way about Blue Security. But I gotta say that some of the comments here seem off the wall, like the one that said Blue Security was the only hope we had to fight spam. I’m no expert, but I gotta believe the multitude of anti-spam solutions out there would beg to differ. As for the comments that Blue Security wasn’t using DOS as a weapon, how else can you interpret the quote from Blue Security’s big boss: “The sheer amount of complaints going to the spammer’s site is going to make it hard [for that site] to do anything else.” Call it what you want, but the result seems to be DOS.

by: Brian Williams

Fri, 19 May 2006 11:11:32 +0000

The only non-spammers who don’t like what BS were doing are people like Smugderwood and, presumably, this author, who make money out of consultancy and journalism spinoffs caused by spam suffering. Get rid of spam, these people have to do something else. Why would we need “email battles” for example? HOW THE HECK can you call it abusive to send ONE OPT OUT PER PERSON to a site that uses spam services involving the illegal use of zombie bots and spoofed return addresses?
The software even throttled back to ensure no DDOS. What DID happen was that the spamvertised company had to sort through thousands of opt out messages and why not? Smugderwood calls it DDOS as a typical smear campaign spreading falsehoods to discredit. A practice sadly typical of American business life. (Speaking as someone who has worked there for 4 years for a big corporation).

by: jon

Thu, 18 May 2006 22:14:04 +0000

I believe bluesecurity has started a new chapter in the war of spammers. There actions (from an advanced users point of view) is the most drastic and controversial step ever taken to control all the garbage/crap all of us get in our e-mails. I am a proud member of blue frog and believe strongly in what they stand for, spammers should be prosecuted in my opinion, there actions are disturbing, morally wrong–>porn spammers, and most of the time illegal business practices. All of these websites (around the world) should be shut down and the supporters sued and the ones who started the website given jail time, if this was done just once or twice I believe the spammers would look for legitimate/legal & moral ways to make a living instead of being sleezy, low lives that prey on pushing there scams/junk on the rest of the world. Bluesecurity/Bluefrog will be back, COUNT ON IT their push us and get shoved back policy is just what we need. I will support anti-spam tactics whatever they are, any way I can.

by: BJ Gillette

Thu, 18 May 2006 09:48:56 +0000

@Stewart.
RE: “Blue Security … was NOT a DoS vigilante as you state.”

After reviewing every word ever written on this site concerning BS, I cannot find that term applied to BS by Email Battles anywhere. Perhaps you can help.

As we’ve stated ad nauseum, BS’ sin was picking a fight, then wussing out. When BS dragged Typepad and Tucows into its fight with outsiders, the company morphed from controversial experiment to industry pariah.

Stewart, if our pointing out analysis by undeniable experts in the network infrastructure and anti-spam fields offends, your aversion to Email Battles coverage is well founded. Doggone us!

by: Stewart Lockey

Thu, 18 May 2006 09:45:15 +0000

I find your coverage of the Blue Security demise so staggeringly bias in favour of the Spammers I seriously question your motives. Blue Security was a valiant attempt to cut the amount of SPAM on the internet. It was NOT a DoS vigilante as you state. It just automated a job I have to do on a daily basis which is trying to opt out of spam mail.

Based on your coverage and obvious bias I can only assume you have an alternate agenda than your stated one. Thus I can no longer believe what you say in editorials or features. For one I’ll no longer be visiting your site.

by: BJ Gillette

Thu, 18 May 2006 08:09:56 +0000

Aren’t spam buyers baffling?

As direct marketers discovered long before the email or the Internet existed, there truly is a sucker born each and every minute.

For confirmation, check the contents of the snail-mailbox in front of your home.

by: Patrick

Wed, 17 May 2006 22:31:18 +0000

I’m sorry to see Blue Frog go. It was our only hope to stop spammers.

maybe people will wise up and stop buying the spamvertised products ?