21 Jun
2001
21 Jun
'01
7:41 a.m.
I agree with Tony here, in that there has to be a valid application for the
features of email that so many SPAMmers have exploited. However, if you
want to do away with bulk email, something's got to be done. This means
somebody, somewhere, will lose. Perhaps, if unsolicited bulk mailings were
just easier to recognize ...
Since I can't keep SPAM out of my (snail) mailbox and I can't keep SPAM off
of my phone (unsolicited calls), I really don't have any expectations about
keeping it out of my email.
With the costs being so low, I'm surprised we (Internet users) don't get a
whole lot more SPAM.
SteveRob
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
21 Jun
21 Jun
8:20 a.m.
Since I can't keep SPAM out of my (snail) mailbox
and I can't keep SPAM off
of my phone (unsolicited calls), I really don't have any expectations about
keeping it out of my email.
With the costs being so low, I'm surprised we (Internet users) don't get a
whole lot more SPAM.
Post a lot to usenet, or have your address out on the web, and you will.
The Mailhole, a program I wrote as an active spam filter, repulses about
100 messages a week, and I'm hardly a big target.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. --------------
3:51 p.m.
Steve Robertson wrote:
I know I'm replying to the wrong message, but can't find the original.
Fix Federal law, like they did to stop bulk FAXes. Being able to
identify the spammer is indeed 90% of the battle. People tend to
be far less obnoxious when you know where they live, even if only
in cyberspace.
Impose a stiff fine, with teeth, for any spam mailer found to be using
a bogus return address, and a greatly enhanced fine for using a valid address
that is not theirs, and allow the legitimate holder of the address the right
to sue for damages if they get hate mail.
Require that a human being, not an autoresponder, be reachable at the UCE mail's
return address, and spot check to make sure they're reading and responding
periodically. Bounced messages could be forwarded directly to some department
of the FTC or Justice Department to track down the origin. It would be a huge
job,
but at least for US-based spammers, it might deter truly obnoxious behavior.
(Most ISPs would (80?)86 a client with huge mailboxes overflowing with
complaints.)
To work, I guess it would have to be a net revenue generator.
It probably wouldn't work but maybe it would silence or reform the
worst offenders.
Just some idle thoughts. I'm sure holes will be shot through starting
immediately. :-)
I agree with Tony here, in that there has to be a valid application for the
features of email that so many SPAMmers have exploited. However, if you
want to do away with bulk email, something's got to be done. This means
somebody, somewhere, will lose. Perhaps, if unsolicited bulk mailings were
just easier to recognize ...
Since I can't keep SPAM out of my (snail) mailbox and I can't keep SPAM off
of my phone (unsolicited calls), I really don't have any expectations about
keeping it out of my email.
With the costs being so low, I'm surprised we (Internet users) don't get a
whole lot more SPAM.
SteveRob
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
22 Jun
22 Jun
2:40 a.m.
At 05:51 PM 6/21/01 -0700, Ross Archer wrote:
Fix Federal law, like they did to stop bulk FAXes.
Being able to
identify the spammer is indeed 90% of the battle.
Ho ho ho. You should see the garbage can next to my fax
machine. I'm still getting junk faxes and telemarketing
calls for imaginary employees we registered at trade shows
in order to use up all the badges we were allocated.
- John
5:26 a.m.
Yes, I ditched my fax machine in favor of software FAX handling in order to save
a forest or two. I recently discontinued the FAX altogether since I use it so
seldom.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
At 05:51 PM 6/21/01 -0700, Ross Archer wrote:
Fix Federal law, like they did to stop bulk FAXes.
Being able to
identify the spammer is indeed 90% of the battle.
Ho ho ho. You should see the garbage can next to my fax
machine. I'm still getting junk faxes and telemarketing
calls for imaginary employees we registered at trade shows
in order to use up all the badges we were allocated.
- John
5:09 a.m.
The folks in California have, over the course of the last 50 years, proven that
you can't legislate good sense. All the well-intentioned legislative attempts
to "fix" what's a world-view problem have failed. Look at the illegal
immigration issue. Look at the effects of their tax limitation program. Look
at the energy cost deregulation debacle. Every time the gov gets in, the costs
go up.
What's needs to be done is SOMETHING that is part of the internet, not part of
U.S. law.
The majority of the SPAM I receive is not only from foreign hosts, but in
languages I can't read. I most often don't even have the required character set
loaded up.
U.S. law won' have any impact outside the U.S.
We can consider laws to regulate internet behavior when we successfully
implement a system of laws that regulates social behavior within our country.
In the meantime, let's keep the GOV out of our internet. All they'll do is
limit our ability to use the thing. They won't make it work better. What's
needed is a way to identify bulk mailings of all sorts, so that the sender can
be charged proportionally to his/her bandwidth consumption. That's the REAL
problem with SPAM. It steals bandwidth. Loss of this bandwidth will inevitably
result in all of us having to pay for the bandwidth we use. That will result in
the very people who should be using the internet using it less because it costs
more to use it more. The bandwidth cost has to be structured such that
high-volume uses pay MORE not less. Just like electrical power users, the use
of more than a typical small household requires should be penalized with higher
rates ... MUCH higher rates ... rather than lower rates as a reward for wasting
more.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Archer" <dogbert(a)mindless.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Steve Robertson wrote:
I know I'm replying to the wrong message, but can't find the original.
Fix Federal law, like they did to stop bulk FAXes. Being able to
identify the spammer is indeed 90% of the battle. People tend to
be far less obnoxious when you know where they live, even if only
in cyberspace.
Impose a stiff fine, with teeth, for any spam mailer found to be using
a bogus return address, and a greatly enhanced fine for using a valid address
that is not theirs, and allow the legitimate holder of the address the right
to sue for damages if they get hate mail.
Require that a human being, not an autoresponder, be reachable at the UCE
mail's
I agree with Tony here, in that there has to be a valid application for the
features of email that so many SPAMmers have exploited. However, if you
want to do away with bulk email, something's got to be done. This means
somebody, somewhere, will lose. Perhaps, if unsolicited bulk mailings were
just easier to recognize ...
return address, and spot check to make sure they're reading and responding
periodically. Bounced messages could be forwarded directly to some department
of the FTC or Justice Department to track down the origin. It would be a huge
job,
but at least for US-based spammers, it might deter truly obnoxious behavior.
(Most ISPs would (80?)86 a client with huge mailboxes overflowing with
complaints.)
To work, I guess it would have to be a net revenue generator.
It probably wouldn't work but maybe it would silence or reform the
worst offenders.
Just some idle thoughts. I'm sure holes will be shot through starting
immediately. :-)
Since I can't keep SPAM out of my (snail) mailbox and I can't keep SPAM off
of my phone (unsolicited calls), I really don't have any expectations about
keeping it out of my email.
With the costs being so low, I'm surprised we (Internet users) don't get a
whole lot more SPAM.
SteveRob
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
4:21 p.m.
Richard Erlacher skrev:
The majority of the SPAM I receive is not only from
foreign hosts, but in
languages I can't read. I most often don't even have the required character
set loaded up.
That's odd, most spam I get, while a fair share is in Chinese, is in English.
Quite often, it is also stated that "this offer is only available to US
residents". BLOODY HELL! What do you think the ".se" means?
U.S. law won' have any impact outside the U.S.
Thankfully.
In the meantime, let's keep the GOV out of our
internet. All they'll do is
limit our ability to use the thing. They won't make it work better. What's
needed is a way to identify bulk mailings of all sorts, so that the sender
can be charged proportionally to his/her bandwidth consumption. That's the
REAL problem with SPAM. It steals bandwidth. Loss of this bandwidth will
inevitably result in all of us having to pay for the bandwidth we use. That
will result in the very people who should be using the internet using it less
because it costs more to use it more. The bandwidth cost has to be
structured such that high-volume uses pay MORE not less. Just like
electrical power users, the use of more than a typical small household
requires should be penalized with higher rates ... MUCH higher rates ...
rather than lower rates as a reward for wasting more.
Erlacher, have you considered how much bandwidth you are wasting by not
snipping responsibly?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Hackers do it with fewer instructions.
23 Jun
23 Jun
6:03 a.m.
<cringe> Sorry ... I suppose a cost based on transmitted messages would have
effect on my behavior as well.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iggy Drougge" <optimus(a)canit.se>
To: "Richard Erlacher" <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Richard Erlacher skrev:
>The majority of the SPAM I receive is not only from foreign hosts, but in
<snip>
rather than
lower rates as a reward for wasting more.
Erlacher, have you considered how much bandwidth you are wasting by not
snipping responsibly?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Hackers do it with fewer instructions.
8431
days inactive
8433
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
dogbert＠mindless.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
optimus＠canit.se -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu -
steven_j_robertson＠hotmail.com