Can You Imagine what You Could Do With 250 FREE Talking-E-mails Every Month!

Can You Imagine What YOUR CLIENTS Could Do With 250 FREE Talking-E-mails Every Month!

How About Talking Autoresponders!
How About a FREE Affiliate Program!

Have A Look What Can You Lose Apart From Lots of Sales!!

www.talking-e-mails.com

Talking e-mail? I dunno... sounds kind of irritating. I don't like any sound coming out of my speakers unexpectedly. I abhor web pages that automatically load music or sound effects. What if I'm at work and some cheesy midi music starts coming from my computer? Then everyone knows I'm goofing off, including the boss. I'll remember to never go back to that site again. Talking e-mail doesn't seem like much of a better idea.

That's all we need, talking spam. Instead of ADV, which very few spammers include, maybe they could send an icon of a derrierre for that is what they would be talking from!

Epsilon

Have you actually tried it.

There is a demo at the left hand side of the page.

You never know You might actually like it.

www.talking-e-mails.com

Can we have scrolling java script and animated gifs in these emails too, I love those LED java applets???

Originally posted by Duster
That's all we need, talking spam. Instead of ADV, which very few spammers include, maybe they could send an icon of a derrierre for that is what they would be talking from!

:eek: talking spam?!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:laugh:

:cartman: wait... crap, i hope thats not what this world will come to! :bawling:

I've actually received talking spam (started with about three copies, and then multiplied into around a dozen). I created a rule that started forwarding it directly to the appropriate abuse people, and it dried up in a hurry.

I also got a talking e-mail one day. It was a promo from iFilm with an embedded movie trailer. I don't know what movie because I was pissed and deleted it in about 0.02 seconds.

Originally posted by Annette
I've actually received talking spam (started with about three copies, and then multiplied into around a dozen). I created a rule that started forwarding it directly to the appropriate abuse people, and it dried up in a hurry.

hmm, how do you create a rule to do that? :confused:

Originally posted by alpha


hmm, how do you create a rule to do that? :confused: I don't know what e-mail program you use, but in MS Outlook you click on Tools, then select Rules Wizard. You can then configure just about any rule you want to automatically execute.

so how big are these e-mails? Unless they have some whizzbang way of compressing sound I'm going to be pretty angry that the junkmail that's talking to me is streaming in chewing through my download (or worse, just downloads the whole mess into my box, then starts playing). Considering I dislike a 10k html junkmail, I can only imagine how impressed I'll be with this... Looks like I'll be visiting SpamCop a lot more if this becomes the norm - I almost exploded the day I got my first junkmail that popped a window up!

I don't know where advertiser get the idea that irritating people is going to convince them to buy something. If I'm talking to someone and they're not interested, getting up real close to their face and yelling at them with the same deal is going to change their mind??

Come on....

Greg Moore

lol, i meant where do you send the abuse email thingie to?

You have to open at least one of them and take a look at the headers. Set the rule to automatically forward off to abuse@wherever and delete the message. Done! One of the things I like best about Outlook is the ease with which these types of things are handled, since I get boatloads of mail every day. Alternately, if it's coming to a domain you manage and you have the capability, you can create the rule right on the server. Either way, it's a very effective way to get rid of spammers.

hmm... i always just delete all the spam without doing anything about it...

so in order to report it, you just send an email to abuse@(look at headers and determine origin) ?

does this work for all spams? im tired of spam and if there's anyway i can report these things to make em stop, ill do it within a second! ;)

Nope, it absolutely does not work for all spam. Headers can be forged, some abuse places do squat about spammers (uu.net, for one), and so on. The only thing that bouncing this type of mail does is help decrease he load on your mailbox. That is a good thing, but I'd like it a lot better if some of these abuse people would take care of their half of the responsiblity by canning their spammers.

But what criteria does your rule use to determine which messages are spam? I mean, if it's all done automatically, how do you know you're not unintentionally reporting a message that isn't actually spam? Or for that matter, an unsolicited message that fully complies with the new U.S. laws regarding the allowance of unsolicited messages under certain conditions?

While the vast majority of e-mail Outlook identifies probably deserves to get reported, it is possible that you may be reporting well meaning non-spammers to the abuse dept.

Last I heard there is no US law that allows UCE.

Originally posted by Epsilon
But what criteria does your rule use to determine which messages are spam? I mean, if it's all done automatically, how do you know you're not unintentionally reporting a message that isn't actually spam? Or for that matter, an unsolicited message that fully complies with the new U.S. laws regarding the allowance of unsolicited messages under certain conditions?

While the vast majority of e-mail Outlook identifies probably deserves to get reported, it is possible that you may be reporting well meaning non-spammers to the abuse dept.

What criteria? The criteria that if I receive over a dozen of the same message from the same sender, and I didn't ask for it, it's spam. Period.

Note that I did not say that I let Outlook tag mail on its own. Don't read things into my post that are not there, please.

There is no law that allows people to send UCE to anyone they damn well please, whether they identify it as such or not. Spammers like to quote some law that doesn't exist because one of the rules about spammers is that they lie. The other is that they're stupid. Both would apply in this case.

<<MOD EDIT: Had nothing to do with thread.>>

Originally posted by Epsilon
Or for that matter, an unsolicited message that fully complies with the new U.S. laws regarding the allowance of unsolicited messages under certain conditions?


Ha! The spammers have brainwashed you!

You must have read "this email complies with US Bill............and therefor cannot be considered spam"...right?

You know what? If you live in the US, and ever watched Schoolhouse Rock in the late 1970s - early 1980s, you'll know that a BILL IS NOT A LAW!!!!

--Tina

What criteria? The criteria that if I receive over a dozen of the same message from the same sender, and I didn't ask for it, it's spam. Period.

Note that I did not say that I let Outlook tag mail on its own. Don't read things into my post that are not there, please.

There is no law that allows people to send UCE to anyone they damn well please, whether they identify it as such or not. Spammers like to quote some law that doesn't exist because one of the rules about spammers is that they lie. The other is that they're stupid. Both would apply in this case.
Ummm... Didn't mean to get you bent out of shape there, Annette. I was simply asking to satisfy my own curiosity because I might want to set my e-mail up the same way. However, there are pending laws in the Senate that would allow people to lawfully send you unsolicted messages under specific circumstances. Probably the best one, and the most likely to be federal law soon, would be the "Inbox Privacy Act of 1999" which was introduced by Senator Frank Murkowski. You can read about it at http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/statutes/email/inbox1.html

I hate spammers as bad as you do, and I am in favor of a federal law that will restrict their activity. I was just expressing a concern about the method by which people are reported to abuse departments. I was unclear as to your methodology. Now I understand. You report people if they send you a dozen of the same message.

Thank you for clearing that up for me, and I hope your day gets a little bit better.

Originally posted by AffordableHost
You know what? If you live in the US, and ever watched Schoolhouse Rock in the late 1970s - early 1980s, you'll know that a BILL IS NOT A LAW!!!!

--Tina Yes, Tina. Thank you for pointing that out. I do remember my college professor making that distinction when I was studying criminal justice. I should have not been so lazy as to forget to type "pending" new U.S. law.

Much appreciated.

Hey Tina, you and Annette would probably get along well. You seem to have similar conversation styles. I'll bet your company's customers really love your charisma.

Originally posted by AffordableHost
You must have read "this email complies with US Bill............and therefor cannot be considered spam"...right?

You know what? If you live in the US, and ever watched Schoolhouse Rock in the late 1970s - early 1980s, you'll know that a BILL IS NOT A LAW!!!!
That's why I simply hit FORWARD and type abuse@[ service provider ].[ suffix ] when I can see where it comes from.

I don't care who you are. It's like that Pillsbury joke:

Touch me and die :mad:

Episilon, I'm not bent out of shape about it at all. Just because I don't use smilies to pepper my postings doesn't mean I'm always irritated.

I've seen the Murkowski pend, and it seems to stand about the same chance now that it did then: zilch, because it's dead. People simply do not want spammers invading their mailboxes, under any circumstances. I know I don't. Of course, that doesn't stop spammers from putting in that ridiculous tagline, as if this had already been passed.

Originally posted by Epsilon
However, there are pending laws in the Senate that would allow people to lawfully send you unsolicted messages under specific circumstances. Probably the best one, and the most likely to be federal law soon, would be the "Inbox Privacy Act of 1999" which was introduced by Senator Frank Murkowski.
It was neither the best one nor is it pending. The Murkowski bill died a couple of years ago, at the end of the 105th Congress in 1998.
It's the one most quoted by spammers however, (SR 1618) and has even been referenced in South American spam. hah. Spammers are stupid.

Rule number 1. Spammers lie.
Rule number 2. Spammers are stupid. *
Rule number 3. If there is any doubt, refer to rule number 1.

* There is a very small minority of spammers who are quite clever in their unethical and often illegal ways. These are the ones that create the tools that they they sell to those who do the actual spamming.

Current legislation can be accessed at http://www.cauce.org/legislation/index.shtml

Originally posted by Annette
I've seen the Murkowski pend, and it seems to stand about the same chance now that it did then: zilch, because it's dead. People simply do not want spammers invading their mailboxes, under any circumstances. I know I don't. Okay, now I'm just confused. This and other bills in Congress would make spamming illegal (which it currently is not, it's only "impolite"), but despite your dislike of spam, you don't seem to be in favor of such a bill becoming law. :confused:

Sorry, I guess I just assumed that you had actually read the bill. There I go reading stuff into your posts again. My bad.

A bad law is worse than any law at all. One of the common failings of the bills proposed so far is allowing spam to be sent so long as certain conditions were followed, including removal instructions. Aside from the fact that such bills would do nothing to prevent spam, spammers have already demontrated how effective removals are. Some are not even deterred by laws.

Sam Khuri, the guy who sends all those spams about laser toner, has a toll free number for removal on every spam. Just see if it works (the removal, not the phone number). This is a guy who is in defiance of two court orders to cease spamming. Do you really think such people care if others want to receive spam messages or not?

Estimates range from 1800 to 6500 spam messages that each of us will get by 2005. Can you imagine the inconvenience caused by that much spam? Even if you requested to be removed from their lists, that's all you'd be doing with that much spam. Of course, you wouldn't be removed from most of them. Why would someone who pays nothing to send their messages spend any time and make any effort to remove people from their list? These are people who don't care about others. That's an essential part of being a spammer.

If we are to have a meaningful and effective federal law, it must outlaw spamming altogether (along with the distribution of harvesting software and mailing lists with unwilling recipients) and allow for fines of $500 each for violators. A move towards 100% verified (by the recipient, not the sender) opt-in e-mail lists is what is needed. Nothing else will suffice or address the problem adequately.

Estimates range from 1800 to 6500 spam messages (presumably a year) that each of us will get by 2005. [/B]

Actually that figure that is waved around is actually PER DAY. Personally I think there's a little spin doctoring on that number to shock people, but at present growth rates it's not unrealistic. Saturation points will usually slow it before it gets near that level though. 6500 a year is only around 20 a day (very rough maths there), and I can safely say I'm already there (across several inboxes). That usually increases a bit over the weekend as all the part time 'work for extra cash' spammers get into the action as well.

As I can't put a "No Junk Mail" mail sign on my inbox I do the next best thing. Complain. E-mailing them directly will just have me added to more lists, so off to SpamCop I go and feed it till it's ready to burst.

** As I type this I can see 22 junk e-mails across three inboxes that were cleaned out only a few hours ago. Most are sitting in 'bulkmail' folders I have set up to weed out my real e-mail.

Greg Moore

P.S. I guess the guy who started this thread wasn't quite expecting it to go this way...

You're probably right, Greg. Its got to be at least monthly, if not daily. Many people are already getting 6500 yearly ( a bit over 18 daily). I might get about 20 a week, and that's because I have so many blocked already and subcribe to the 3 MAPS services.

Originally posted by akashik

P.S. I guess the guy who started this thread wasn't quite expecting it to go this way...
I expect not, though he got what he deserved., The whole service and message is clearly designed for spamming and spam support services are every bit as bad as those who do the actual spamming.

The only good spammer is a dead spammer.

I'm not really affected by spam all that badly. I get about 15 to 20 e-mails per day and on average about one or two of them are spam. They're gone with a couple clicks of my mouse. And I've been using the same e-mail address for over three years now, so why am I not bombarded with spam like some people are?

I can't sit and write an essay on how much I hate spam and spammers, because it doesn't really affect my life all that much. I don't allow it to.

Originally posted by Epsilon
Okay, now I'm just confused. This and other bills in Congress would make spamming illegal (which it currently is not, it's only "impolite"), but despite your dislike of spam, you don't seem to be in favor of such a bill becoming law. :confused:

Sorry, I guess I just assumed that you had actually read the bill. There I go reading stuff into your posts again. My bad.

You know, I had typed up something about the ineffectiveness of congresscritters trying to understand or enforce anything related to this issue, especially given the horribly flawed nature of every single bill that has been proposed, but it appears that you are bent solely on either deliberately trying to misunderstand what I say, or simply attempting to be insulting. There is not one bill that makes spam "illegal" per se. Every single one of them makes it "legal" as long as removal instructions are included, which is ridiculous. They want to protect consumers from the constant influx of spam? They should make it illegal, period, unless you specifically opt in. The only thing all these proposals do is make sure that spammers have a free reign, much like they have now. Since there is no way to enforce anything anyway, it's a useless process in any event. I receive about 200-300 emails per day, of which a substantial portion are spam. It's tedious and annoying. Nothing I have seen in those proposals would change that.

But, since it's so obvious to you that I've not bothered to read anything about this issue, why on earth should I try to convince you otherwise? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Epsilon
Okay, now I'm just confused. This and other bills in Congress would make spamming illegal (which it currently is not, it's only "impolite"), but despite your dislike of spam, you don't seem to be in favor of such a bill becoming law. Spamming is not "only impolite" now, it's in violation of usage guidelines at just about every service provider. Passage of these laws would likely change that, by giving legal protection to spam as long as it meet guidelines which in reality will do nothing to deter it. Passage of the proposed laws you cite is supported by spammers -- which is why they consistently quote it in their messages, pretending that it actually is the law -- and opposed by those who support spam.
there are pending laws in the Senate that would allow people to lawfully send you unsolicted messages under specific circumstances I guess I'll have to go watch Schoolhouse Rock again, I seem to have forgotten a verse of that song. What's a "pending law?" Why are any of these "pending?"

Use of that term implies that these bills eventually will become law; the only circumstances I can think of under which it might be accurate to use the term would be in referring to a bill that has passed into law but has not yet gone into effect. There are no pending laws regarding spam.

Originally posted by JayC
Spamming is not "only impolite" now, it's in violation of usage guidelines at just about every service provider. Passage of these laws would likely change that, by giving legal protection to spam as long as it meet guidelines which in reality will do nothing to deter it. Passage of the proposed laws you cite is supported by spammers -- which is why they consistently quote it in their messages, pretending that it actually is the law -- and opposed by those who support spam.
I guess I'll have to go watch Schoolhouse Rock again, I seem to have forgotten a verse of that song. What's a "pending law?" Why are any of these "pending?"

Use of that term implies that these bills eventually will become law; the only circumstances I can think of under which it might be accurate to use the term would be in referring to a bill that has passed into law but has not yet gone into effect. There are no pending laws regarding spam.
That's no use. UK likes spam, while the EU says it cost their countries some $10-billion a year.

What's the solution? Beats me, 'cause fake emails can be created on the fly. Again, Pillsbury:

Touch me and die

Originally posted by JayC
I guess I'll have to go watch Schoolhouse Rock again, I seem to have forgotten a verse of that song. What's a "pending law?" Why are any of these "pending?" Okay, so go watch Schoolhouse rock again. Am I surprised to find that both you and Tina from "Affordablehost.com" derived a part of your present day knowledge base from watching Saturday morning kid's programming? Nope. I could have guessed that. :D

Originally posted by PBoy
That's no use. UK likes spam, while the EU says it cost their countries some $10-billion a year.
I believe 9.36 billion is the figure quoted. That's a lot of money!

What's the solution? Beats me, 'cause fake emails can be created on the fly.
A combination of laws and technologies. Make it illegal to spam, provide spam support, and make it prohibiitively expensive for those who ignore the laws.
When you change the economics of spamming, you'll get rid of the problem.

Originally posted by Epsilon
Okay, so go watch Schoolhouse rock again. Am I surprised to find that both you and Tina from "Affordablehost.com" derived a part of your present day knowledge base from watching Saturday morning kid's programming? Nope. I could have guessed that. :D

Let me refresh your memory a bit, since you so conveniently took the above out of context. Jay went on to say:

"Use of that term implies that these bills eventually will become law; the only circumstances I can think of under which it might be accurate to use the term would be in referring to a bill that has passed into law but has not yet gone into effect. There are no pending laws regarding spam."

Please point out to us any bills that have passed both sides of the Hill but have not yet become law - and so are "pending" - regarding spam. You won't find any, as they do not exist. You are still missing the point, however: the proposals being bandied about are supported by spammers. Those proposals do nothing to deter spamming, nor do they make spamming "illegal", nor do they define harsh enough penalties for violations to make it worth the while of a spammer to comply with it. It's ineffectual. As Duster points out, the only way to get rid of spam is by making it economically unfeasible for spammers to do what they do. However, as long as people continue to buy things that are advertised via spam, that will not happen.

So then the only feasible actions are:

a) Pass a law that outlaws unsolicited commerical e-mail completely, without regard to circumstances

or

b) Do nothing. Leave the system like it is.

Unfortunately, I think if enough people insist on such an ultimatum, the latter option will continue to hold true. If Congress was willing to completely outlaw unauthorized communication, they would have already written laws to prevent telemarketing and weekly coupons in your snail mailbox. Heck, you might even need written authorization to talk to someone on a CB (that's "citizen's band radio" for you younger people). I don't see it being outlawed altogether, at least not in the U.S. So why are we still discussing it?

CB? Now that's something you don't hear every day... :)

Unfortunately, I think there are feasible actions, but it's unlikely that they would ever be implemented. When you can't even get a provider to stop their spambags when it's against their own TOS/AUP, that's a bad omen. UU.net is particularly bad about this, as are AITCom, Media3. Toss in the fact that Congress can't force other countries to adhere to whatever they might pass anyway, and it's simply too big - this really has to be done at the ISP level if it's to be done at all, and some of them will not cooperate for one reason: spammers pay their bills.

Originally posted by Epsilon
If Congress was willing to completely outlaw unauthorized communication, they would have already written laws to prevent telemarketing and weekly coupons in your snail mailbox.
That statement indicates a total ignorance on your part of one of the problems with spam, that it shifts the cost to the recipient rather than the sender. That is not true of any other form of communication. E-mail is unlike any other media and cannot be compared to any other (although spammers like to compare it to postal mail in certain regards). It costs a spammer nothing to send thousands or millions of unwanted messages. That must be changed in order to prevent it.

As a matter of fact, there are laws that allow consumers not to receive telemarketing calls, as well as technology that helps prevent it. Unfortunately, many telemarketers ignore the lists of people on do not call lists. One woman in Florida made over $20,000 last year from telemarketers calling her. It's $500 for calling her (since she is on a do not call list) and another $500 when she tells them not to call again and they do anyway. She said she would rather they just didn't call.

You are speaking from a position of ignorance. It is clear you do not understand the problem of spam at all, If you wish to learn, just ask. However, your sarcasm to people who know far more than you is unwarranted and only reveals that you donlt knwo what you are talking about. You might want to quit while you are behind as you 're surely not going to improve your standing.

Duster, I made a post on this thread earlier explaining how spam has never really affected me. I've been using the same e-mail address for three years and only about 10% of the mail I get is spam, and it takes me mere seconds to delete them. That's why I don't understand why everyone continually whines about it.

Notice that I was the first one to say that I don't understand the problem. Yet instead of actually explaining it, you've chosen to write a few paragraphs about how ignorant I am, telling me that I should leave the discussion. I think I will leave because judging by your gradeschool-like discussion style, it's apparent that I've stumbeld into the kiddie section of this message board.

I think you must read and comprehend at a kiddie level as what I said was "If you wish to learn, just ask"

The fact that you get only a small amount of spam and aren't bothered by it doesn't mean that others don't get considerably more. Apparently, you don't have the imagination to visualize that simple fact.

The paragraphs I wrote explained part of the problem so that you might understand. Since you choose to be petulant rather than make any effort to understand the nature of the problem, by all means leave the discussion to grown ups. Go watch Barney.

Well, with Duster's reply (2nd post), this somewhat shifted into a spam debate, though I'm not entirely sure that talking email=spam exactly, but regardless- can we lose the subtle insults?

Well, since I started this thread I better put in my 2 cents worth.
Firstly Chicken is right when he states that this has developed into a spam debate. When I posted this ad Spam did not even enter my mind. I was thinking of legitimate uses. Some of you must have spam on the brains.
Again following on from chickens post since when did talking email=spam.
A QUESTION: How many Spammers use email (in one form or another) to send their spam.
ANSWER: 100%
So by the infererence(if you aged 5 or less look it up in a dictionary) that if you use talking email YOU MUST BE a Spammer then surely if you use email then YOU MUST ALSO be a spammer.
IT IS PEOPLE WHO SEND SPAM NOT TOOLS.

If you couln't quite grasp that then I will try another one. I don't know if any of you send out a newsletter but if you do then you soon realise that you need some form of bulk email program to post to your newsgroup.
SHOCK, HORROR You must be a spammer because you use a bulk email program.

I am sorry but what a load of rubbish some of you have posted.
What happened to help, guidance and constructive criticism. Some of you could have politely pointed out that the product could be used by spammers (who would have their membership revoked) and I could have replied much the same as I did above that it is people not tools that spam.
Instead I have been accused of spam WHICH I HAVE NEVER DONE.
Most of the posts I can just ignore but their is one that I cannot. I will leave it up to you to find it.

Web2web

If you can name some legitimate uses, please do so. the whole posting and web site smacks of nothing but spamming, beginning with the topic "triple your sales".

Here's what the web site says:
It's the Hottest New Marketing "Weapon" available! (You'll make more sales!)

It Grabs Your Prospect's Immediate Attention! (So they'll read your email)

It can increase your retail sales Dramatically!

It will build any affiliate or mlm business much faster!
If someone has a prior business relationship with any business, you don't need to grab their attention with talking e-mails or do anything special to get them to read your e-mail. Grabbing people's attention to get them to read the e-mail is the goal of spammers in search of that special moron who will respond to their message. If sound was helpful, it could be included on the business web site rather than clogging up the Internet with large audio files sent into people's e-mail boxes, many of them limited in size.

The fact that it is also marketed to mlm virtually guarantees spam.

The whole site is written to suggest people send unsolicited e-mails without coming out and saying it.

If you can name a single legitimate use for talking e-mails suggested by the web site, by all means do so. Otherwise, if it looks like manure and smells like manure, I'm going to figure it's manure (or, in this case, a tool for spreading manure). So will many others.

If spamming is not your intention, then change your web site. Also, don't even mention mlm. Take a cue from what happened with all advantage and similar programs, You will be known as a spam service.

Originally posted by web2web
So by the infererence(if you aged 5 or less look it up in a dictionary) that if you use talking email YOU MUST BE a Spammer then surely if you use email then YOU MUST ALSO be a spammer.
IT IS PEOPLE WHO SEND SPAM NOT TOOLS.

If you couln't quite grasp that then I will try another one. I don't know if any of you send out a newsletter but if you do then you soon realise that you need some form of bulk email program to post to your newsgroup.
SHOCK, HORROR You must be a spammer because you use a bulk email program.

To use your own words, what a load of rubbish you have posted. Cheap tricks and a spammer's mentality.

1. Lots of people use e-mail without spamming.
2. Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail, not bulk e-mail. People and businesses who send bulk e-mail to people who signed up for it (verfied opt-in) are not spammers.


Instead I have been accused of spam WHICH I HAVE NEVER DONE.
You weren't accused of anything. I did point out that talking e-mails would be used for spamming. Indeed, some people in this discussion have already received them. Point made most effectively.

I got your point about how tools are used. However, unlike e-mail itself, talking e-mails seems marketed as a tool for nothing but spamming, hence your point about tools is irrelevant.