31 Jan
2002
31 Jan
'02
2:03 a.m.
Also, how does one enforce a no-call list internationally? A lot of the spam
I get on Hotmail comes from non-US sources. BTW, I started getting spam on
Hotmail _before_ I had sent out any email -- just signed up for it and the
spam started coming the next day. And their filtering works for only 80%-90%
of the spam, as about 10% gets delivered to my inbox.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Schaefer [mailto:rschaefe@gcfn.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:09 AM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Hildebrand" <ghldbrd(a)ccp.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 05:07 AM
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
I remember when Dalnet blacklisted AOL users for several months. Really
put the dampers on my IRC activities, as one of my better friends was an
AOL subscriber.
What really is needed is stronger rules on unsolicited e-mails. Maybe
something like a no-send list, like we have here in Missouri for
telemarketers.
Ohhh, not such a good idea. A no-call list works with telemarketers because
ma bell _knows_ who's making the calls, and the 3733+3 phreaks who have the
skill to skip that little annoyance aren't the same as the ones who spam.
Spam mostly comes from computers with open relays-- the phone equivalent
would be telemarketers calling from phones people left sitting in the
windowsill or on the front porch when they're outta town. Spammers would
see the no-call list as the Holy Grail of verified email lists.
Gary Hildebrand
Bob
31 Jan
31 Jan
2:39 a.m.
Feldman, Robert wrote:
Also, how does one enforce a no-call list
internationally? A lot of the spam
I get on Hotmail comes from non-US sources. BTW, I started getting spam on
Hotmail _before_ I had sent out any email -- just signed up for it and the
spam started coming the next day. And their filtering works for only 80%-90%
of the spam, as about 10% gets delivered to my inbox.
Bob
Jerome Fine replies:
I sounds as if the spam is sent to a list of reasonable e-mail addresses picked
by a computer program without any actual verification - unless Hotmail "sells"
them - but how would the new list be circulated so quickly?
It seems as if a permanent e-mail address will not be possible until the spam
problem is handled by the users themselves.
I just suggested adding 4 random characters (36 ** 4 = 1,679,616) to my
actual e-mail name (before the @) and changing them as needed - BUT
with a fallback of replacing the 4 random characters with the current year.
Has anyone ever tried this? Obviously, if it became a standard practice,
it would not work, but there must be many such replacement methods.
And in the mean time, e-mail addresses would start to change so often
than perhaps the ISPs would finally find so much spam mail was being
rejected that they would actually attempt to stop unsolicited traffic.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
4:19 a.m.
What would be interesting to pursue in the context of disouraging SPAM is the
reorganization of the email scheme such that a single email could only be sent
to a single destination without substantial cost to the sender. Moreover, it
should be done in a way that absolutely ensures that the original sender email
address is contained in the email. That alone would solve a number of
problems.
Yes, this would mean that mailing lists would become more difficult to handle,
but that is not insurmountable. Email needs a mechanism that allows email to
be as low-cost as possible for single-destination emails while costing
significantly more, e.g. 10^(N^N!) for n-destination emails, and charged to
the sender, not to some external route engine that ends up routing a single
message to a bunch of destinations based simply on a list of recipients
included in the original. If one destination cost the sender a penny, two
destinations cost the sender a buck, and three cost him a kilobuck, he'd think
twice about using the net for junk mail.
I've got no problem with the use of the www for commercial purposes, but since
people in other parts of the world, e.g. Europe, pay for hookup time and
download of each email costs something in those terms, it's not right to ask
people to pay for unsolicited junk mail. Further, the bandwidth that the
stuff consumes only brings nearer the time when we here in the U.S. will end
up paying for our internet usage by the bit as do many others throughout the
world. It's incumbent on us, therefore, to do SOMETHING about this. Right
now, it's still a no-cost nuissance to us here in the U.S. but to those in
Europe who pay for the bandwidth they use, and to the system as a whole, it's
already a major cost.
I simply discard the 10% or so of my email that's junk. Likewise, I simply
discard the junk mail I get from the USPS. If it doesn't have a return
address and a postmark, it goes in the trash. True, I've had some checks,
etc, go in the trash, and had to pursue them through other channels, but
unpostmarked items look like junk, and 80% of my snail-mail is junk, so they
go in the trash.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerome Fine" <jhfine(a)idirect.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: spam/avoidance of
spam
picked
Feldman, Robert
wrote:
> Also, how does one enforce a no-call list internationally? A lot of the > I get on Hotmail comes from non-US sources. BTW,
I started getting spam on
> Hotmail _before_ I had sent out any email -- just signed up for it and the
> spam started coming the next day. And their filtering works for only
80%-90%
of the spam,
as about 10% gets delivered to my inbox.
Bob
Jerome Fine replies:
I sounds as if the spam is sent to a list of reasonable e-mail addresses by a computer program without any actual verification
- unless Hotmail
"sells"
them - but how would the new list be circulated so
quickly?
It seems as if a permanent e-mail address will not be possible until the
spam
problem is handled by the users themselves.
I just suggested adding 4 random characters (36 ** 4 = 1,679,616) to my
actual e-mail name (before the @) and changing them as needed - BUT
with a fallback of replacing the 4 random characters with the current year.
Has anyone ever tried this? Obviously, if it became a standard practice,
it would not work, but there must be many such replacement methods.
And in the mean time, e-mail addresses would start to change so often
than perhaps the ISPs would finally find so much spam mail was being
rejected that they would actually attempt to stop unsolicited traffic.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
5:56 a.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
What would be interesting to pursue in the context of disouraging SPAM is the
reorganization of the email scheme such that a single email could only be sent
to a single destination without substantial cost to the sender. Moreover, it
should be done in a way that absolutely ensures that the original sender email
address is contained in the email. That alone would solve a number of
problems.
<<<<<<<<<<snip
snip>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a substantiated rumor out there that our legislators have
considered a "per e-mail" charge, to support the Post Office (not the
place to put the money). Maybe ISP's could be allowed to charge for
excessive e-mail useage, and keep the profits . . . Like the
Republicrats say, let the market decide the price. Would spammers pay
30 or 50 cents per e-mail? Some would, some definitely wouldn't.
Gary Hildebrand
6:56 a.m.
There is a substantiated rumor out there that our
legislators have
considered a "per e-mail" charge, to support the Post Office (not the
place to put the money). Maybe ISP's could be allowed to charge for
excessive e-mail useage, and keep the profits . . . Like the
Republicrats say, let the market decide the price. Would spammers pay
30 or 50 cents per e-mail? Some would, some definitely wouldn't.
Gary, unless something has happened very recently this is pure urban
legend.
g.
8142
days inactive
8142
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
edick＠idcomm.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
ghldbrd＠ccp.com -
jhfine＠idirect.com -
Robert_Feldman＠jdedwards.com