very well said :)<br><br>I guess bullshit and made up stats are acceptable since everyone else is doing it. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:49 PM, don bailey <<a href="mailto:don.bailey@gmail.com">don.bailey@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
Robert McGuire wrote:<br>
| I don't believe remaining anonymous invalidates comments, just seems<br>
unnecessary, much like FUD.<br>
|<br>
| Can't argue with reepex, FUD is unnecessary and utterly transparent so<br>
you have to wonder why every company in the "industry" perpetuates it.<br>
It's counterproductive in fact, makes my job more difficult so were it<br>
up to me it wouldn't be a part of our message.<br>
|<br>
| If either of you have better insight regarding the impact, cost,<br>
effect of spam please share.<br>
|<br>
<br></div>
Well now that you're admitting that FUD is part of your business model<br>
I'm saddened that this e-mail isn't to a public mailing list. I'm sure<br>
many professionals would be interested in your ethics. Blaming other<br>
companies in the security industry is child's play and only serves<br>
to make you look foolish.<br>
<br>
I find it extremely laughable that you are attempting to redirect this<br>
discussion to "the impact, cost, effect of spam". Our focus is your<br>
company's blatant use of fake "facts" to push your product. Do you<br>
really think you're talking to adolescents? I'm not distracted by<br>
your shiny nickel. Either stay on topic or end the conversation.<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
D<br>
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)<br>
<br></div>
iEYEARECAAYFAkgmbKsACgkQttfe3HwtctNreACgkS4VrTOS00qxmdnFigrXmnHW<br>
lK0AnjYr1Ob52O6nlM2pZJsPOr0H9Dlz<br>
=tNH1<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
</blockquote></div><br>