PDA

View Full Version : How to get rid of spam?



Exhaust Port
07-14-2003, 02:39 PM
Recently we've seen a push by the government and even private industry to find a way to stop spam. Here's my idea:

All spam I get is advertisement for a product or service. Instead of wasting time trying a way to stop the spam from reaching the masses why don't they just severly penalize the company or product that's being advertised? It seems to me that they are going about it all wrong trying to find ways of filtering out the unwanted email. I think the better solution is to go after the companies that utilize it. Right there on the email is the contact information. If Joe Blow is trying to sell everyone a new mortgage rate then go after him. If he's sick of being fined a large amount for every infraction then he'll stop using spam email as a method of email.

Mr. Spam Sender will be out of business if companies don't want to be fined for using that type of service.

stillakid
07-14-2003, 03:08 PM
What I don't get is the spam telling me how to get rid of spam. :crazed:


I think that the best "non-government" solution is to develop a program in which you could input a spammer's email address and have it automatically deluged with spam from other spammers. The program would essentially compile a list of spam addresses (updatable from the web) and very soon, every spammer alive would clog up with mail from like minded fools.

derek
07-14-2003, 04:55 PM
i think just like with bashing telemarketers, this idea of banning unwanted e-mail is not needed. i get telemarketers calling my house, and i don't just answer the phone, or i hang up on them.......no big deal, that's why i have caller ID and an answering machine..............and i have a "delete" button on my inbox..............i really don't see what the big deal is............besides, what could be considered spam for one person is a potential valued product to another..................only in america do we have enough leisure time to complain about little things like telemarketers and un-wanted e-mail!!! :crazed:

Pendo
07-14-2003, 05:15 PM
Spamers should be scared to send spams in the first place. At the moment nothing is really done about spam, but spam emails should be traced to the source and the spammer should face a penalty! With fear of being arested alot of spammers would then probably stop!

PENDO!

stillakid
07-14-2003, 06:03 PM
and i have a "delete" button on my inbox..............i really don't see what the big deal is............


For me...

Why should I be forced to scour through my email every morning looking for those that I truly am interested in reading? Spammers seem to think that if I am continually pounded with offers to enlarge my penile member, then I will just give in and do it. Bottom line is that if I need to purchase something, I'm quite likely to go looking for it myself when I want to. All other attempts to get my attention (like PopUps for instance) are a tremendous waste of their time and mine. I shouldn't be forced to use my delete button when I never asked them to send me anything in the first place. When I'm ready to get a bigger package down there, I'll give 'em a call. Until then, they can leave me alone. :frus:

Exhaust Port
07-14-2003, 06:08 PM
i really don't see what the big deal is

This is more of an issue of receiving unwanted email. Spam is also dragging down the ISP's of the world and that cost is pasted onto us. Current estimation is that spam cost US corporations almost $10 Billion a year. Now not only are we taking a hit in our ISP costs but those companies who are affected by the onslaught of spam pass their cost on to us as well. Here's an article I found, albeit not the best one out there it does give a brief explaination of the issues.


Spam Article (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/A6F26AE8-C831-469E-81157FC4252D98CB/catID/96A3E6BC-22BC-43EE-BDE2D470B0972A47)

Imagine how much you would hate telemarketers if you were charged 25 cents everytime they called. Even though you could hang up and deny the offer you still got hit with a financial penalty AT YOUR COST. Not fun. With the explosive growth of spam, in addition to the current cost, we going to see some significant cost increases if it's not stopped.

derek
07-14-2003, 06:10 PM
...........but this is an internet provider problem, not something to be handled by the government......... ;) i have no problem with AOL or whomever putting a stop to this.

Exhaust Port
07-14-2003, 06:16 PM
The government has a hugh investment in the Internet (remember they funded it's initial research as well as it infrastructure?) as well as utilizing it to run nearly all the different facets of their operation. They too are subjected to the cost that spam generates. How do you think the government will be offsetting those costs? Higher taxes or pulling from other departments or projects. I'd rather my local government spend the extra $xxxx a year on the school and not trying to upgrade their system to handle the spam issue. Perhaps you have different priorities in your town.

stillakid
07-14-2003, 06:22 PM
...........but this is an internet provider problem, not something to be handled by the government......... ;) i have no problem with AOL or whomever putting a stop to this.


Ah, but here is the rub. If I'm not mistaken, the FCC requires that all television commercials identify the company or product they are selling in some manner. This was of course done when the public airwaves were the primary source of television advertising. The point being, so that consumers could easily discern what was legitimate programming and who was selling snake oil.

Anyhow, the FCC has a responsibility to play catch up with the Internet. While indeed most of us pay for access, just as we pay for a hard line access to broadcast media, the Internet is "public property." No one person owns it. It belongs to everyone, and just like the public airwaves (the EM spectrum), there needs to be an official recognition that users are utilizing it for the "public good." Of course, there's a bit of a gray area there as people have differing opinions about what constitutes "good," however receiving a gigabyte of unwanted advertising in your personal (paid for) mailbox can't possibly fall into that category.

Put simply, I bought the right to my own email address and should have the power to decide who gets to put mail in it and who doesn't. I don't care if someone puts up a "penis enlargement" or "breast enhancement" or "save 80% on your insurance" or "XXX" website. I can type that in to my address bar or not. Just like changing channels on the TV. But I should not have to be subjected to that kind of unsolicited nonsense. The government has a responsibility to be involved.

JediTricks
07-14-2003, 09:06 PM
i think just like with bashing telemarketers, this idea of banning unwanted e-mail is not needed. i get telemarketers calling my house, and i don't just answer the phone, or i hang up on them.......no big deal, that's why i have caller ID and an answering machine..............and i have a "delete" button on my inbox..............i really don't see what the big deal is............Tell that to my email box, if I don't check it every day, it fills up completely with spam which risks my dialup account shutting me down. It's like if telemarketers called your house every 30 seconds and you HAD to listen to the first 5 seconds of their spiel to get rid of it because they sometime pretend to be people you know or phone calls you're actually waiting for.

Spam is beyond abusive now, they are using a mail system which has been free to everybody to advertise at all of us, thus stealing our time and costing networks money to transmit and deal with this stuff. And they are difficult to track down because they can spoof IP addresses and put fake remove links & other nastiness which can end up putting the recipient's address on a verified-address list which the spammer can then sell to other spammers.

IMO, email lists should be illegal to sell and the consequences for attempting to do so should be stronger and more enforced than current restrictions. Email addy robots and spiders should be outlawed as well, as should blind email opt-out subscriptions (I think that actually is illegal, but it's a gray area; in any event, you should have to double-opt-in on any mailing list instead of sending blind emails to someone and telling them they can opt-out). ISPs should work harder to cut off spammers' access to the internet, email servers should only allow a small number of batch addresses per email, and IP addresses should be harder to spoof thus making it easier to track the offender down.

Darth Jax
07-14-2003, 09:31 PM
i have no idea what restrictions are in place for junk mailings via the UPS, but a similar restriction should be placed for the internet. i have never asked anyone to send me a coupon or catalog, but get several a week when i check my mailbox. i get an offer from a credit card company offering me lots of credit everyday. i've never received anything remotely 'controversial' in the mail though. it seems eliminating that portion of the spam emails would cut down on their volume dramatically.

derek
07-14-2003, 09:49 PM
i guess i don't get that much spam, cause i haven't really had a problem with it, but i also use a few different e-mail addresses as well. one i use to sign up at forums and other such sites which probably sell that address...which is why it seems to get the most junk mail, which i just delete all of it...and others i only use for personal messages to people i know.......so i really haven't had much of a problem. :confused:

and another thing, all my spam goes into a bulk file which makes it very easy to delete......so i guess i haven't experienced the horror you guys have.:)............but i also check my mail boxes a few times a day and delete as i go, so it dosen't back up. :cool:

JediTricks
07-14-2003, 10:53 PM
i have no idea what restrictions are in place for junk mailings via the UPS, but a similar restriction should be placed for the internet. i have never asked anyone to send me a coupon or catalog, but get several a week when i check my mailbox. i get an offer from a credit card company offering me lots of credit everyday. i've never received anything remotely 'controversial' in the mail though. it seems eliminating that portion of the spam emails would cut down on their volume dramatically. At least there, the advertiser is paying for the junkmail, though my mailbox is really starting to suffer since I don't check it every day (and don't get me started on this when it comes to election-time, the jerk who wastes the LEAST paper on bothering me just might get my vote). The USPS rules surrounding junk mail are somewhat complicated though, but I have known a few folks who have gotten an unsolicited Adam & Eve catalog in their mail and been less than thrilled about it. Because email is entirely free to the user, the idea of financial burden doesn't even enter into it and spammers will sometimes send out spam with OTHER people's advertising alongside theirs simply so they won't get caught.


Derek, I download my email rather than using a web-based system, so my spam folder is the trash bin, but the filters used to do this aren't as advanced as the ones you find on Hotmail & Yahoo, so I don't catch very much spam that way and sometimes get an authentic email sucked into it via a filter (had an email from Tycho do this last week). It's very frustrating. And I don't use my email addresses for almost anything, sometimes it's just some CC: list that includes every name on a mail server; I even had a Hotmail account set up that I never used or gave out the addy of get spam.

DewMan37
07-20-2003, 09:51 PM
Anyhow, the FCC has a responsibility to play catch up with the Internet.

No they do not. The FCC Limits prgramming in the US, and in the US only, it has nothing to say about what canada puts on TV. The FCC has **** to say about what is on the internet, it's worldwide. Believe it or not, the border patrol deals with things on the internet. Do some research, I'm not talking out of my ***...

stillakid
07-21-2003, 12:05 AM
No they do not. The FCC Limits prgramming in the US, and in the US only, it has nothing to say about what canada puts on TV. The FCC has **** to say about what is on the internet, it's worldwide. Believe it or not, the border patrol deals with things on the internet. Do some research, I'm not talking out of my ***...


:rolleyes: Buy a clue. I was referring to the FCC mandate to protect public property, which includes the airwaves...and, now, unofficially anyway, the internet. It's precisely because of this "unofficial" status of the internet that the government has to play "catch up." Anyone with copyrighted material is at risk regardless of what media we're talking about and at present, there are no defined safeguards in place for the internet the same way they exist for other methods of distribution.

The next time you attempt to discredit someone, try to actually read what is written first and then comprehend it fully.

Exhaust Port
07-21-2003, 08:58 AM
I don't catch very much spam that way and sometimes get an authentic email sucked into it via a filter

It turns out that Time Warner/Road Runner changed their filter a month ago and it started stopping a lot of authentic email. All I noticed was that I stopped getting weekly and bi-weekly updates from my employeer and union. I just figured that times were busy and so the email was suspended. Well this last week I got blasted by email. It turns out that the filter was stopping a lot of email and people were complaining so they made adjustments. I got a month and a half of email over a 24 hour period which just about swamped me. It really got me wondering how much email I've missed in the past.

stillakid
07-21-2003, 01:51 PM
It turns out that Time Warner/Road Runner changed their filter a month ago and it started stopping a lot of authentic email. All I noticed was that I stopped getting weekly and bi-weekly updates from my employeer and union. I just figured that times were busy and so the email was suspended. Well this last week I got blasted by email. It turns out that the filter was stopping a lot of email and people were complaining so they made adjustments. I got a month and a half of email over a 24 hour period which just about swamped me. It really got me wondering how much email I've missed in the past.

I've tried filtering stuff in the past, but when I realized that some legit messages weren't getting through, I stopped. :(

JediTricks
07-21-2003, 11:18 PM
That sucks EP.

When I filter my messages, I have the system change their label when they get sent to the trash, that way, before I empty the trash, I can sort by label and skim what's been caught by the filters. It's not foolproof, but I have found a few emails that were filtered and weren't supposed to be. That's the chief advantage to having my email program filter the mail instead of letting the online systems do it.

Exhaust Port
07-22-2003, 11:26 PM
I read an article in the newspaper yesterday saying that the spam filter industry would approach >$1 billion in a few years due to the need and demand for it. The thing that sucks is that we the consumer are going to be paying for that not the companies that send the spam email. This is why I think they need to come down on the sender and not try to create new filters at our expense to fix the problem.

Look how much work and maintenance it takes in your experience JT to use a filter to avoid losing wanted email. All this because they're concentrating on not fixing the problem but fixing the aftermath. This will be one of our stories for our grandkids in 50 years. "Back in my day, we didn't get 1,000 bogus emails a day, we only got email from friends and family and life was good until the email spammers started."

JediTricks
07-23-2003, 12:01 AM
I think at a certain point, the current POP3 system just won't work anymore with the massive glut of spam and a more spam-proof mail system (one that also hopefully won't be so prone to virus transmission) will be created.

EricRG
07-23-2003, 12:11 AM
And Derek,

What about children with e-mail addresses getting porn stuff??? Isn't that illegal? Does that not require action by the gov't?

mabudonicus
07-23-2003, 07:57 AM
I still don't get why so many hands seem to be tied on this whole issue... I don't get too much junk mail at all, my account is with yahoo.ca and it really does seem spam free (of course, saying this will somehow change that, universal law and all)
I've NEVER given my e-mail address anywhere.... I guess having web based e mail (so there's no internal "contacts" list to be extracted and used against me) makes it easier to avoid... I also imagine that there may be a difference between our respective countries... anyone else find this???I mean, even with telemarketing, we do seem to get "hit" less overall than many folks south of the border, and from what I've read it gets worse as one goes south....
And Ericrg, that could be a pretty effective way to attack said companies, with the "adult" stuff getting sent to kids, if there were ever grounds for legal action, a situation like that would do well to prove injury, to be sure.
And in a personal sense (specially if ya have outlook) try to get folks to send bcc or even cut the funny images off of them million-address "joke" e-mails and send you a fresh clean one.... I HATE to see my address in a giant list attached to some picture of nude old people doing yardwork ;)