New Webmail Service

[NickRem]

Originally Posted by xmailer

It's only relevant to answering your question. Since you seemed to think the question of a message being "bulk" is so important, as far as I know it's only "relevant" because you seemed to think it important enough to bring it up.

Yes, the question of being "bulk" is quite important, since it's part of the actual definition of spam.

Please don't expect me to have memorized everything in this overly long, boring thread.

Surely you must have an idea about some of these questions, since you keep bringing them up? If you can't even remember what they were, did they even exist?

[xmailer]

Originally Posted by NickRem

Yes, the question of being "bulk" is quite important, since it's part of the actual definition of spam.

"Important", my friend, in this, and in everything, is "relative." The question is, "important" to what? Or perhaps, in this case, relevant to what? Is the "question of being bulk" important, or relevant, to the definition of "spam"? Generally speaking, of course (although not necessarily as I explained above).

However, the "question" of the definition of spam was never particularly relevant in this thread in the first place, but OzySites's raising of it here in the first place was highly irrelevant to the discussion preceding it. No one else here asked about the definition, nor did anyone here say anything here suggesting a misunderstanding of it prior to his bringing it up that I noticed. But it was just close enough to the general discussion here to allow him to drag it in as a red herring to what others here were actually discussing to allow him to divert the subject to that highly tangential subject. And apparently at least you took the bait -- hook, line, and sinker. Perhaps he should consider hiring you for this talent.

Surely you must have an idea about some of these questions, since you keep bringing them up? If you can't even remember what they were, did they even exist?

I keep bringing them up? You're the one who seems to be repeatedly asking about them. But if you really care that much, you'll probably have to go quite a way back in this thread, to way back before OzySites diverted the subject to the definition of spam in the first place, and as far as I can tell, only you and he have seemed, for whatever reasons, obsessed with that non-issue here since then. By "non-issue", I mean it had no bearing on the discussion here until he brought it up, essentially "out of the blue."

So, rather than asking me what "the questions" were, perhaps you can tell me, or perhaps ask him yourself, what his "question" (about the definition of "spam") ever had to do with anything previously discussed in this thread. If you or he can answer that question, then perhaps I'll try to answer yours. Fair enough?

But, as far as I can tell, this thread has become a pointless exercise in dead horse beating ever since he effectively killed off his own thread when it wasn't going the way he wanted it to, in order to open a new thread to continue with his only real reason for coming here -- that is, in order to advertise his (overpriced, by the judgment of most here) service.

[NickRem]

Originally Posted by xmailer

Is the "question of being bulk" important, or relevant, to the definition of "spam"?

Yes, that seems to be the case. Bulk is part of the definition in Wikipedia, at least.

But it was just close enough to the general discussion here to allow him to drag it in as a red herring to what others here were actually discussing to allow him to divert the subject to that highly tangential subject.

Right. So what were others discussing?

And apparently at least you took the bait -- hook, line, and sinker.

Actually, I'm trying to figure out what you think people should be discussing, but you keep avoiding the question.

Perhaps he should consider hiring you for this talent.

How mature.

So, rather than asking me what "the questions" were, perhaps you can tell me, or perhaps ask him yourself, what his "question" (about the definition of "spam") ever had to do with anything previously discussed in this thread.

Since I don't know what people were supposedly discussing, I don't know what spam had to do with anything.

[xmailer]

Originally Posted by NickRem

Yes, that seems to be the case. Bul is part of the definition in Wikipedia, at least.

Okay, but I haven't seen anyone here seriously debating that point. At the most,.I recall perhaps suggesting that, to the individual recipient, it may matter little whether an unwanted, unsolicited email message was sent to anyone but him/herself, since in many cases only my address, or sometimes none at all, appears on the To line.

Of course, I generally infer that it was probably sent to others as well. But i have no problem identifying it as spam whether or not I can actually prove that it was sent to anyone else, and i doubt many others do either. If you require irrefutable proof that someone other than yourself has received a particular message before reporting it as spam, then I can only guess that you may likely report much less spam than I do to my email provider and Spamcop,.

Either way, I've hardly seen the question of whether spam is generally assumed to be sent in "bulk" as a serious point of contention anywhere in this thread until you seemed to consider it an issue serious enough to warrant belaboring here.

Right. So what were others discussing?

Again, please review the thread or ask these "others" you refer to. And again, the real question is why the definition of spam came up in this thread in the first place. And since I don't recall bringing it up, unless you can at least point to the post in which you might believe I did so, I would suggest asking OzySites why he brought it up, complete with the specific post by anyone else that it was intended as a reply to.

Otherwise, it seems to me that you're unreasonably asking me to do your "homework." As, unless you clearly understand the importance or relevance of its discussion in this thread at least better than I do, one might only wonder why you keep seeming to dwell on it so much.

Actually, I'm trying to figure out what you think people should be discussing, but you keep avoiding the question.

Why is it up to me what people "should" be discussing here? In fact, it isn't. I've merely inquired what the relevance of the discussion of the definition of spam has to anything said here by anyone but OzySites and yourself, and thus far neither you or he has offered a quotation of a post by anyone else that it had any relevance to, and hence, what it's relevance ever was in this thread.

Since it might appear to be your and his implication that it has some relevance to something in this thread, in your repeated dwelling on it, it might seem pretty clear that the burden of establishing its relevance should be on you, not me or anyone else.

How mature.

If you're looking for "mature" discussion, I wouldn't suggest wasting too much time dwelling on this particular thread, at least not the last few pages of it. In fact, there are likely far more interesting and enlightening discussions in this forum than you're likely to find in this particular thread.

[Since I don't know what people were supposedly discussing, I don't know what spam had to do with anything.

You seem to be actively engaging in a thread quite a bit for someone who seems to admit to not understanding much of what it was about (with the emphasis on "was" -- it really hasn't been about anything of much interest for quite awhile now).

[NickRem]

Originally Posted by xmailer

At the most,.I recall perhaps suggesting that, to the individual recipient, it may matter little whether an unwanted, unsolicited email message was sent to anyone but him/herself, since in many cases only my address, or sometimes none at all, appears on the To line.

The definition doesn't really depend on what the recipient thinks. If it was just sent to him, it is not spam.

Again, please review the thread or ask these "others" you refer to.

I tried to read the first part of the thread, but everything was a huge mess. That's why I'm asking. You're making claims about discussion topics, so I was assuming that you actually knew.

Otherwise, it seems to me that you're unreasonably asking me to do your "homework."

No, I'm asking you to substantiate your claims. I have already tried to figure out what the real discussion is, but failed.

Why is it up to me what people "should" be discussing here?

You made specific claims about what is/isn't being discussed. So one might assume, then, that you know what the actual topic is. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

You seem to be actively engaging in a thread quite a bit for someone who seems to admit to not understanding much of what it was about

That's because I'm curious, and when I'm curious I'll keep digging.

[xmailer]

Originally Posted by NickRem

The definition doesn't really depend on what the recipient thinks. If it was just sent to him, it is not spam.

So, are you saying that someone should never report a message as spam to his email service (e.g., click on the "report spam" button in his/her webmail interface to help train the service's spam filters), or report it to Spamcop or the service from which the message was sent unless he can first prove it was sent to someone other than him/herself?

Because if so, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of email users (and EMD members and readers) would strongly disagree with you. Otherwise, this might seem, at best, an "academic" issue here, with little practical importance from an email user's/recipient's point of view

I tried to read the first part of the thread, but everything was a huge mess. That's why I'm asking. You're making claims about discussion topics, so I was assuming that you actually knew.

I hope you know what they say about A**uming.

No, I'm asking you to substantiate your claims. I have already tried to figure out what the real discussion is, but failed.

Probably because you seem to be too eager to argue to bother reading very carefully. I told you a number of posts ago when the subject of the definition of spam was brought up, by whom, and what it appeared to be in response to. It gets very tedious repeating myself with you when your entire motive for being in this thread might seem to be to argue while making little effort to understand what you are arguing about or why.

You made specific claims about what is/isn't being discussed. So one might assume, then, that you know what the actual topic is. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

It looks like I can't win with you. So exactly what are you criticizing me for -- for making specific claims about what the topic is or for not doing so???

Your posts are starting to seem to reach the point of irrationality of contradicting yourself. Please at least make up your mind what it is you're "charging" me with here. Is it for giving you information or for not giving you information? You're starting to appear "all over the board" here in more ways than one.

That's because I'm curious, and when I'm curious I'll keep digging.

Frankly, if you spent more time reading and thinking and less time arguing about what you seem to repeatedly admit that you don't understand, it would likely greatly diminish your necessary "digging" time. I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, it isn't, and never was, my responsibility to explain this entire multi-page thread to you.

Seriously, if you admit that you don't even understand it, why is it seemingly of such obsessive importance to you? Don't you have anything more important to do than to continue belaboring this thread which apparently everyone but you has by now conceded is essentially "dead"? :I know I do.

Seriously, exactly what is it that you are trying to prove here and to what end? Are you trying to inform people of something you think is important here, and if so, what and why do you think it's so important in this particular thread which is (supposedly) about a particular email service -- one which I'm not sure I've seen you even mention in a single post you've made to this thread?

Or are you just trying to "win" an argument when I haven't even seen you raise a particularly important point of contention here, let alone explain its relevance to the email service which was under discussion here (several pages ago).

Please do tell me what you think the importance of your "argument" here is to the Ozymail service. If you can't even better communicate the message you seem to think is so important here, or what its relevance is to this thread and the service this thread was originally about, why should I or anyone else feel obligated to explain anything to you?

Do you really not see how "tangential" your last several posts here are to the subject of the service which this thread was discussing? Have you even seen a post by anyone here which has even mentioned that service in the past page or two?

And yet, you can't seem to understand why I am asking the relevance of your posts? I'm sorry, but if you can't see that yet, I'm not sure I would know how to better explain it to you.

[NickRem]

Originally Posted by xmailer

So, are you saying that someone should never report a message as spam to his email service (e.g., click on the "report spam" button in his/her webmail interface to help train the service's spam filters), or report it to Spamcop or the service from which the message was sent unless he can first prove it was sent to someone other than him/herself?

This is irrelevant. We're discussing the definition of spam. Please don't change the subject again.

I told you a number of posts ago when the subject of the definition of spam was brought up, by whom, and what it appeared to be in response to.

Link?

It looks like I can't win with you. So exactly what are you criticizing me for -- for making specific claims about what the topic is or for not doing so???

You claimed that the definition of spam wasn't being discussed, but that there were other things instead. So you made the claim that there were other things, but you didn't bother to mention what.

Your posts are starting to seem to reach the point of irrationality of contradicting yourself.

No, it is merely you who are trying to twist my words.

Seriously, if you admit that you don't even understand it, why is it seemingly of such obsessive importance to you?

Obsessive? You've been posting loooong comments in this thread for a lot longer than I have been participating in it. Perhaps you should ask yourself instead.

Please do tell me what you think the importance of your "argument" here is to the Ozymail service.

You seem to be saying that Ozymail is trying to hide something by changing the subject. That makes me curious, and I want to know what he didn't respond to that you think is so incredibly important.

[xmailer]

Again, I've already answered that and I'm getting tired of repeating myself to someone who obviously isn't even making any serious effort to read and understand my posts.

Thankfully I can't recall saying anything like this to anyone at a forum for quite a long time now, but....do you by chance have a hobby or anything? Or perhaps you could consider cutting down a bit on the caffeine or something? Seriously, please stop trying to resurrect the long-dead.

[cahero]

I'm going to have spam for breakfast tomorrow

[xmailer]

Originally Posted by cahero

I'm going to have spam for breakfast tomorrow

Finally someone has something of interest to say in this thread about spam. Thank you!

[OzySites]

Hello

OzyMail is now fully sercue by SSL Cert using HTTPS from the moment you Log-In.

Cheers

[William9]

I think the focus should be on the user's account being secure rather than Ozymail being protected.

[OzySites]

Originally Posted by William9

I think the focus should be on the user's account being secure rather than Ozymail being protected.

Secure if you prefer then.
Cheers

[OzySites]

Originally Posted by stevejuriburg

Moderator removed spam.

Here is a brief discription of the anti-spam.

1) Block Senders - Either by email address and/or domain name.
2) Safe guard all your contacts (Address Book) from being affected by the by the Anti spam rules.
3) Create a Safe senders list also using email address or domain name.
4) Use of a special spam key _ secret key that can be used by your friends so their message will not blocked. For example, if a friend of yours sends you a message with the word "free" in it, and you choose to block this kind of messages (by defining a rule below), tell him to include this special key anywhere in the subject line, and his message will not be filtered.
5) Actions that can be taken when suspect mail is recieved,
6) With each folder created you can specify it's own anti spam rules. Have emails recieved go directly into that folder.
7) Give each folder a different Auto Respond email.
8) Filter words from the content of the email recieved to be sent to specific folders or even deleted/rejected.
9) Request Read Receipt message.

Plus so much more.

On top of this we have our own server side spamassasin, Anti spam rules and Anti Virus/Auto Hacker software. All on a SSL Certified/secured Site as well as Server.

Cheers

[soromak]

Originally Posted by OzySites

Here is a brief discription of the anti-spam.

1) Block Senders - Either by email address and/or domain name.
2) Safe guard all your contacts (Address Book) from being affected by the by the Anti spam rules.
3) Create a Safe senders list also using email address or domain name.
4) Use of a special spam key _ secret key that can be used by your friends so their message will not blocked. For example, if a friend of yours sends you a message with the word "free" in it, and you choose to block this kind of messages (by defining a rule below), tell him to include this special key anywhere in the subject line, and his message will not be filtered.
5) Actions that can be taken when suspect mail is recieved,
6) With each folder created you can specify it's own anti spam rules. Have emails recieved go directly into that folder.
7) Give each folder a different Auto Respond email.
8) Filter words from the content of the email recieved to be sent to specific folders or even deleted/rejected.
9) Request Read Receipt message.

Plus so much more.

On top of this we have our own server side spamassasin, Anti spam rules and Anti Virus/Auto Hacker software. All on a SSL Certified/secured Site as well as Server.

Cheers

I decided to give Ozymail another chance and I found that I need to put my credentials twice to login. When I go in Firefox 4.0.1 (Mac) to ozymail.com.au I see login screen with a cloudy blue background. I put my credentials in and it opens another login screen, this time in blue only (v.141f) with another login windows. After i put my credentials here and finally lets me to login to my mailbox. What is going on there?
Edit: just tried it in Firefox in Windows 7 and I got exctly the same problem.