b) My “powers of generalization” start from the material provided. If I didn’t manage to make the amazing leap from what you provided to what you’re now claiming you meant, then do please spoon feed me – all of us – in the future. Thank you.

c) Regarding “Your original post”, you’ve lost me. I didn’t write a post “about remote 3D fabrication services” punctuated by a “geek squee”. You seem to be confusing me with someone else here.

d) “You can’t tell me people won’t understand that their fabber should not be directly connected to the Internet. … I can’t see people leaving them that way. Can you? Honestly?”

Understanding it should not be and actually keeping it from being connected are two different things. I know one corporation that didn’t keep its machines isolated from the Net and I’d venture plenty more don’t. So the answer is “Yes”, just as surely as computers on the ISS were reportedly infected by a “gaming virus” and government officials lose laptops, people will connect them to the Intarwebs even if it’s not the smartest thing to do.

e) “One part of the definition of spam (disputed, so if you want to continue to pose, go ahead) is its bulk nature.” > “spilling out of your home fabber”; “It also won’t need ball bearings. Ever.”

Weren’t you just offering to spoon feed me after making some smart ass comment about “powers of generalization”? Rhetorical question. I’m only asking myself why you believe you’re qualified when you seem to miss so much.

f) “is misguided enough to be reading this at this late date”. You mean 2019, when I’m a less-than-pleasant elderly ass stuck on a rust bucket ship? But you got that right?

No. Perhaps you didn’t. You’re probably stuck in the past and unable to get over someone giving an unidentified, overly absolutist “Michael” some deserved grief on the net. Chill out. Unless there’s only one person on the whole internet signing his comments “Michael”, no one knows you got pwn’d by an old man.

Later.

I never had a home fax machine because I realized that allowing people to print things on my paper with my ink was a losing proposition. I had eFax roughly three seconds after eFax existed, and never needed to worry about junk fax, except for realizing that it wasn’t as fun to track as email spam. So on point #1 of your rebuttal, you’re full of shit. You’re even accusing me of making assumptions in absence of data. A classic.

As to point #2, I had trusted that your powers of generalization were sufficient to realize that “email” as a protocol was not the point, and that unauthenticated reproduction of non-virtual content was. My assumption was unfounded. I do apologize; next time, in the unlikely event there is a next time, I’ll remember you prefer your logic spoon-fed.

And as to your series of points about armedness versus unarmedness — that’s where you ceased to be amusing. Do enjoy your fun. And please — feel free to continue calling people numbskulls in public to your heart’s content. God knows we all enjoy it.

I guess my actual point is this: spam relies on faulty security. Your original post was not specifically about spam — it was, in fact, about remote 3D fabrication services, with a geek squee at the end that There! Might! Even! Be! 3D! Spam! That post remains unconvincing. You may find spam exciting, and for all I know, you thought junk faxes were really cool — but my original point remains. Allowing security breaches through something that actually fabricates a solid object with potential to harm is not a security hole that people will fail to notice. The only reason security holes persist in email is that most people don’t understand why their PC should be botnet-protected, or their server shouldn’t be an open relay. You can’t tell me people won’t understand that their fabber should not be directly connected to the Internet.

A case could be made that existing unsecured PCs may have fabbers as a peripheral. This would be a real can of worms — but again, for the very reasons you mention, I can’t see people leaving them that way. Can you? Honestly? Voting records notwithstanding, most people really aren’t the idiots you seem to expect.

There will undoubtedly be security breaches in conjunction with fabbers. But that’s not spam. One part of the definition of spam (disputed, so if you want to continue to pose, go ahead) is its bulk nature. I remain unconvinced that bulk unauthorized 3D fabbing will be a problem.

If you intended to argue that it was, and if you care about actually arguing the point, and if anybody is misguided enough to be reading this at this late date, feel free to argue the point. But if your intent was to prove your superiority, then, I guess I cede that point. You win. Enjoy your prize.