Government actions to limit spam
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
The first response to lack of power is to look for someone/something with more power to help out. Unfortunately, Gov't prolly doesn't have much more control here than anyone else. The post office is a government agency, and junk mail is still around. Programs in effect to reduce telemarketing phone calls don't seem to be working terribly well. And both of these methods of spamming have significantly more cost for the spammer - unless we are talking about a complete change to how email works, we're not gonna get any benefit from legislation here either. Email systems will either improve to eliminate the bulk of spam, or they will fall by the wayside. Much of what i once used email for, i now do via IM. Email will adapt - or die.
- Shog9 -
I'd show a smile but I'm too weak I'd share with you, could I only speak
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Chris Maunder wrote: How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages I used to get loads of mail worms and other annoying virii, but suddenly they stopped. This of course SCARES ME. Wher'd they go, did someone die? Chris Maunder wrote: What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? My dad makes the shiney plastic envelope that the postel ones come in :-) Chris Maunder wrote: What is it about spam that is particularly hateful? The content? The repetitiveness? The uselessness of it? The fact it wastes time and bandwidth? The fact that most people feel so terribly impotent about the problem (ie you can't even reply with 'DIE SCUM DIE!' because you know this will put a big 'We've got a live one!' mark against your name) Lets see.....nope you listed them all :-D A lot of my spam comes from mates signing me up for all sorts of crap as a 'joke'. Without realising the pain it puts me through.
"If you just say porn then you get all manner of chaff and low grade stuff."
- Paul Watson, Lounge 25 Mar 03
"If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
- Anon
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
There has to be some way of limiting the amount of emails that one person or one company can send out. With junk postal mail there is an upper physical limit where it will be just too expensive. With spam the only limiting factor it is only how corrupt and evil-minded you are. Or in other words, it is just too easy. So my opinion is, just make it a little more difficult to send spam and what is left we can live with.
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Chris Maunder wrote: (ie you can't even reply with 'DIE SCUM DIE!' because you know this will put a big 'We've got a live one!' mark against your name) Purely as an experiment in 'what would happen' I started clicking on the 'remove me' links in junk email around 3 months ago. My junk email count dropped from 50 a day to about 4 a day. YMMV and I hasten to add I tried this on an account I had intended to close. With the noise level so greatly reduced I've decided to keep that account after all (and no, it's not hotmail). Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Like many of us I used to swear profusely at the amount of junk email. But as you point out - delete is pretty easy to do. I suspect we're going to be seeing junk email for a long time yet and frankly I've got better things to worry about than a few badly targetted emails each day (what do I want with a breast enlargement ;) ?). I certainly wouldn't want to see a situation develop where someone with an axe to grind could shut down any legitimate business merely by complaining about an email. I am also of the school that thinks giving too much power to any government is a bad thing! Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
My email breakdown is something like: 200 emails a day in total, consisting of: 20 personal (i.e. directly to me) mails 20 newsletters, things I've willingly subscribed to 10 virii 150 Spam Last week I joined spamcop.net - This stops 90% of the spam from reaching me, and has been working quite well so far. What spamcop does is put suspected spam into a held queue so you can review it. At this point you can select messages that aren't spam and whitelist them, or you can just trash all the messages, or (and this is where it gets dodgy), you can do a 'quick report', and trash them. With quick reporting, unless you look closely to make sure each message is really spam, and not from one of your newsletter subscriptions for example, you can end up inadvertantly generating a report for that mail, and adding it to the spamcop 'blocked' list. John. www.silveronion.com[^]
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Chris Maunder wrote: How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages 20:1 Chris Maunder wrote: Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? no. with TV, radio, newspapers, even postal mail the content is (in general) paid for by advertising. everybody expects ads, as part of the bargain. with email, i didn't sign any contract, nor did i give anyone consent to solicit me. (i don't know if that's a valid legal argument) Chris Maunder wrote: Do you care about this? yes. :) Chris Maunder wrote: On whose side would the law operate? as always, the law will operate on the side of the people with the most money. Chris Maunder wrote: Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming tough question. in my own experience, i've received many hostile emails where the sender is calling me a "$%&*^$ spammer!!!", when, in fact, the email was letting them know that a free upgrade was available that fixes problems, adds features, etc.. free!!. after a few rounds of that, i decided it wasn't worth the hassle. plus, my ISP started getting anxious about the email volume - because people upstream from him noticed the traffic. Chris Maunder wrote: I'm still confused about the rotors those are my favorites. electrical supplies, industrial parts, solvents, etc.. it's totally random. Chris Maunder wrote: Does banning spam mean that all advertising be banned? IMO, yes. unless people follow the paid internet access method, where ads are part of the deal, spam is leeching bandwidth, storage and time from everyone except the sender , who 99% of the time is untraceable. -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Chris Maunder wrote: What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? Junk postal mail costs me nothing to receive or dispose of. Junk email costs me money in the form of ISP costs and telephone line charges. End of argument. OK, long version: It's worse in other countries where local phone calls are more expensive (charged by the minute). Over the course of a month, a person might spend say 15 minutes downloading spam emails, which means they spent money as a result of receiving spam. The spammers are usually thieves, using other people's resources (hacked ISP accounts, hacked machines, open mail relays) to send out spam. That right there outweighs all the BS "freedom of speech" arguments. No one has any right to make me pay to hear their speech. I find it extremely pathetic that our gubment can't get their act together and use the existing anti-junk-fax laws as a template for anti-spam laws. Junk faxes, by the way, were made illegal for exactly the same reason. The receiver of the fax pays for it in the form of phone charges, ink, and paper. --Mike-- Yeah, payin' the bills with my mad programming skillz. Defraggin' my hard drive for thrills. Homepage | RightClick-Encrypt | 1ClickPicGrabber "You have Erica on the brain" - Jon Sagara to me
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
and more importantly why does mailwasher report than any emails coming from codeproject is on the spamcop bad boy list? Bryce --- Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitor
-
Chris Maunder wrote: How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages I used to get loads of mail worms and other annoying virii, but suddenly they stopped. This of course SCARES ME. Wher'd they go, did someone die? Chris Maunder wrote: What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? My dad makes the shiney plastic envelope that the postel ones come in :-) Chris Maunder wrote: What is it about spam that is particularly hateful? The content? The repetitiveness? The uselessness of it? The fact it wastes time and bandwidth? The fact that most people feel so terribly impotent about the problem (ie you can't even reply with 'DIE SCUM DIE!' because you know this will put a big 'We've got a live one!' mark against your name) Lets see.....nope you listed them all :-D A lot of my spam comes from mates signing me up for all sorts of crap as a 'joke'. Without realising the pain it puts me through.
"If you just say porn then you get all manner of chaff and low grade stuff."
- Paul Watson, Lounge 25 Mar 03
"If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
- Anon
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]
-
Jonny Newman wrote: Wher'd they go, did someone die? I think it's better not to ask such questions... :suss:
- Shog9 -
I'd show a smile but I'm too weak I'd share with you, could I only speak
Maybe they just GREW UP. And realised its stupid to send virii around when they are likely to get it back sooner or later.
"If you just say porn then you get all manner of chaff and low grade stuff."
- Paul Watson, Lounge 25 Mar 03
"If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
- Anon
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
It should also be possible to make changes in the protocols that deliver emails. Ex. sending an mail without an existing sender should delete the email. The technical problems are not that big. Or why don't demand spammers to mark their emails with the word spam in the email header. That would make it easier to filter away. I would probably filter away all emails "spam_enlagement" and keep "spam_happy_christmas"
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Chris Maunder wrote: - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn't postal mail be banned too? Junk postal - Sender pays. Junk email - receiver pays. Chris Maunder wrote: Business depend on advertising to survive. Businesses survived successfully for hundreds of years before email arrived. I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of spam as a form of advertisement. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has NEVER bought ANYTHING based on spam email. Chris Maunder wrote: The more you advertise the more sales you get and the cheaper you can then sell products. FALSE! I only need one example to prove the fallacy of that statement. Audio CD's have been successfully advertised for about 20 years. Millions have been bought. They're the same price today as they were two decades ago. Number of sales does not drive pricing. What the buyer is willing to pay drives pricing. [Basic marketing fact]. Let me rephrase: If your customers are willing to pay $25 for your product, and you've sold millions with more orders on the way, WHY would you lower the price? If you're a publicly owned company, you may end up losing your job by popular demand. Chris Maunder wrote: The more you advertise the more consumers are made aware of price comparisons between companies and the lower the prices go as companies compete for buyers. Partially true, partially false. For starters, see above response. Advertising is not about making buyers aware of prices. In fact there are many advertisements out there where NO price is listed. Advertising is about creating demand, often artificial (who needs a pet rock??), for a product in order to drive sales. [Another basic marketing fact]. I submit that spam does not increase demand nor cause prices to be lowered. Why then would an owner/reseller of a product spam when it clearly is not cost effective? Well, there's your answer isn't it? Spammers don't pay for spam, the recipients pay for it. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Maybe they just GREW UP. And realised its stupid to send virii around when they are likely to get it back sooner or later.
"If you just say porn then you get all manner of chaff and low grade stuff."
- Paul Watson, Lounge 25 Mar 03
"If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
- Anon
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]
I suppose anything is possible... BTW - something on my work machine is not liking your "project" - it's sitting there ignoring me. i'll give it another try when i get home.
- Shog9 -
I'd show a smile but I'm too weak I'd share with you, could I only speak
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Here in the Bluegrass State (that's Kentucky, USA) the state government recently instituted a "no call" list. You call or sign up on a web site, and telemarketers are not able to legally call you. (If they do, you can sue for damages.) It has worked extremely well. Something similar could be set in place for e-mail. The problem with this is that it may be dificult to enforce, since it is hard to trace the source of most spam. If digital signatures were more prevelant, this would be less of a problem... you could always block any e-mail that doesn't have a valid signature or something. I think the 'freedom of speech' argument doesn't hold in the case of spam, for reasons others have said. Unless you have an 'all-you-can-eat' ISP (like me :-D), it costs YOU money to receive e-mail. The Constutition doesn't give you the right to charge somebody else to hear you. Just my two cents. "When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Chris Maunder wrote: Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? I'm not sure there is a constitutional right to commericial free speech. Is there? There is however, a right to free speech. This irks me, in my opinion an advertisement is not free speech. It is a solicitation, an appeal, a teaser, etc to produce the end result of a sale. I really believe that the terminology has to be clarified. I'd like for a lawyer or someone who really knows the constitution address this particular issue, commercial free speech. If commercial free speech is to be defined, I would define it as a manufacturer, service provider, etc. is commenting on issues related to his/her industry. Example: If the govt decided to tax an industry or regulate it and I received an informational email related to this, I would not consider it spam. Yes, it is unwanted email but it is not an advertisement. IMHO this is no different than all of these emails we receive about appeals for saving Tom's Cat or "Support our Troops" or "Light a Candle at 8 o'clock Tuesday". You can't do anything about those emails and there are not that many of them. If you want to send me an advertisement, send it via the mail and not to my email account. That way you pay for it and not everyone else. Secondly, if I opted to receive advertisements or a newsletter from a particular company, I would like to see a law requiring that any second or third party advertisement emails, identify the primary source of which my email address was obtained. Example: You subscribe to Company A but Company B sends you email advertisements with "you have subscribed to this email advertisement from us or one of our subsiduaries". That way I can go back to the original source and b*tch slap them.
-
Chris Maunder wrote: What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? Junk postal mail costs me nothing to receive or dispose of. Junk email costs me money in the form of ISP costs and telephone line charges. End of argument. OK, long version: It's worse in other countries where local phone calls are more expensive (charged by the minute). Over the course of a month, a person might spend say 15 minutes downloading spam emails, which means they spent money as a result of receiving spam. The spammers are usually thieves, using other people's resources (hacked ISP accounts, hacked machines, open mail relays) to send out spam. That right there outweighs all the BS "freedom of speech" arguments. No one has any right to make me pay to hear their speech. I find it extremely pathetic that our gubment can't get their act together and use the existing anti-junk-fax laws as a template for anti-spam laws. Junk faxes, by the way, were made illegal for exactly the same reason. The receiver of the fax pays for it in the form of phone charges, ink, and paper. --Mike-- Yeah, payin' the bills with my mad programming skillz. Defraggin' my hard drive for thrills. Homepage | RightClick-Encrypt | 1ClickPicGrabber "You have Erica on the brain" - Jon Sagara to me
Michael Dunn wrote: Junk postal mail costs me nothing to receive or dispose of. Junk email costs me money in the form of ISP costs and telephone line charges. End of argument. Just being the Devil's advocate... You don't feel your tax dollars help the USPS to deliver unwanted mail to your door? David
-
Let me first say that I abhore spam as much as anyone else. Every single time CodeProject send out our 'CodeProject Offers' it's like going through root canal surgery. Everyone who gets one has the 'Send me third party offers' box ticked in their profile, and it's very simple to remove yourself (or to email me if you have problems). We don't, and never will send out spam, but even sending out a carefully selected, relevant and interesting opt-in email makes me nervous since I'm relying on everybody to recognise our good intentions. I have to have faith in 300,000 people that they have faith in us. I could never be a Spam King - my nerves would be shot. So the question is: what does everyone think about having the governement (any government) legislate against spam? Let's assume for a moment that once spam was outlawed, you would no longer get any unsolicited email, ever. Not even from another country. Most people's reaction would be 'yay'. Mine was too till I started talking to a few people about it and thinking about it a little deeper. Here are some things that started me wondering. - How much spam do you get vs. email virus messages? For me it's a ratio of about 1 spam per 4-5 email virii. If spam was stopped would your inbox be any safer? (from explicit images maybe, but you'd still be downloading 80% as much crap each morning) - Does banning spam infringe on a business's constitutionally protected (in the US) right to commercial free speech? Or anyone's right to free speech? Do you care about this? - On whose side would the law operate? The spammer or the spamee? Let's say a porn site spams you. They get fined, go to court, and go through the legal process with the intent of the government to shut them down. Now suppose CodeProject was accused of spamming because someone get's a newsletter after joining and not bothering to check the sign up form where it says 'News;etter'. Do you expect that we too would immediately be fined and have to go through due process to explain ourselves (while being banned from sending out a single email - including automatic update notices, forum replies, etc). Assuming we got through OK, how long would we have our hands tied? How much would the legal bills come to? How would our advertisers feel? OR - would the law let us go until due process was completed and we were exonerated. Would spammers exploit this and keep hammering away until the last second they were shut down? - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn
Personally, I think the key to all of this is to charge for advertising emails. Basically, make it illegal to send spam unless it is distributed by a duly authorized mail house and have those mail houses charge the advertiser for their placements. Even just $.01 per email would have a dramatic effect on the quantity of spam. Also, by using an authorized source with rules and procedures, like the postal service does, programs like spamcop could automatically whitelist these emails. A benefit to the advertiser, and a reason they would want to fall in line. I can't see any effective way the government can hope to manage this problem, really. Because there is really no solution, they will be tempted to make it the responsibility of the ISPs (forcing innovation), just like they are trying to hold the ISPs accountable for child porn and hate material. David
-
Chris Maunder wrote: - What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? If you ban spam shouldn't postal mail be banned too? Junk postal - Sender pays. Junk email - receiver pays. Chris Maunder wrote: Business depend on advertising to survive. Businesses survived successfully for hundreds of years before email arrived. I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of spam as a form of advertisement. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has NEVER bought ANYTHING based on spam email. Chris Maunder wrote: The more you advertise the more sales you get and the cheaper you can then sell products. FALSE! I only need one example to prove the fallacy of that statement. Audio CD's have been successfully advertised for about 20 years. Millions have been bought. They're the same price today as they were two decades ago. Number of sales does not drive pricing. What the buyer is willing to pay drives pricing. [Basic marketing fact]. Let me rephrase: If your customers are willing to pay $25 for your product, and you've sold millions with more orders on the way, WHY would you lower the price? If you're a publicly owned company, you may end up losing your job by popular demand. Chris Maunder wrote: The more you advertise the more consumers are made aware of price comparisons between companies and the lower the prices go as companies compete for buyers. Partially true, partially false. For starters, see above response. Advertising is not about making buyers aware of prices. In fact there are many advertisements out there where NO price is listed. Advertising is about creating demand, often artificial (who needs a pet rock??), for a product in order to drive sales. [Another basic marketing fact]. I submit that spam does not increase demand nor cause prices to be lowered. Why then would an owner/reseller of a product spam when it clearly is not cost effective? Well, there's your answer isn't it? Spammers don't pay for spam, the recipients pay for it. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
Sean Cundiff wrote: I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of spam as a form of advertisement http://www.thebee.com/bweb/iinfo34.htm quotes "Frankly, the effectiveness of spam e-mail as a means of advertising remains consistently low". I can't find anything else. Remember though that most spam is just untargeted, unrefined crap. Sean Cundiff wrote: Chris Maunder wrote: The more you advertise the more sales you get and the cheaper you can then sell products. FALSE! I only need one example to prove the fallacy of that statement. Audio CD's have been successfully advertised for about 20 years. ... They're the same price today as they were two decades ago. Actually they are more expensive now than they were when they were a few years back. I apologise for generalising about specific cases I had in mind (eg some consumer electronics etc). This states "...some economists argue that advertising is economically valuable because it increases the flow of information in the economy and reduces the asymmetric information between the seller and the consumer. This intensifies competition, as consumers can be made aware quickly when there is a better deal on offer.". Of course it goes both ways too: "Some economists reckon that advertising merely manipulates consumer tastes and creates desires that would not otherwise exist. By increasing product differentiation and encouraging brand loyalty advertising may make consumers less price sensitive, moving the market further from PERFECT COMPETITION towards imperfect competition (see MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION) and increasing the ability of firms to charge more than marginal cost" Sean Cundiff wrote: If your customers are willing to pay $25 for your product, and you've sold millions with more orders on the way, WHY would you lower the price? Maybe because your competition sells it at $20? Sean Cundiff wrote: Advertising is not about making buyers aware of prices. In fact there are many advertisements out there where NO price is listed. Advertising is about creating demand, often artificial (who needs a pet rock??), for a product in order to drive sales. [Another basic marketing fact]. I beg to differ. Advertising can be used to create demand. It can also be used to inform consumers who al