Government actions to limit spam
-
Chris Maunder wrote: 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'. The checkbox should be unchecked initially, so I have to consiously choose to receive anything. Right now it seems to be checked by default and I have to find it and unselect, that puts Code Project right in the same cathegory as every other spammer.
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
I don't agree. I think it's absolutely universally accepted that if you register on a site in any manner, you're added to the site's newsletter by default. That's certainly my understanding and expectation. If I truly don't want to be contacted, I look for the opt-out checkbox, which is almost always there. 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
Chris Maunder wrote: 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). To save yourself from a lot of trouble, you can make all of this "opt in" instead of "opt out". Keep the default configuration so that people don't recieve anything by default. Let them check a checkbox or choose a radio button to recieve the third party email offers. Don't have these things checked on by default just to have more people on the send list. And even to recieve the reply notifications. Keep the checkbox unchecked initially. Let people make the effort to click and check it. Just like in a software license agreement, by default the radio button "I don't accept the agreement" is checked. Because once the user checks it, he can't claim afterwords he/she got into it because it wasn't obvious, visible, or whatever. Maybe do this to people already registered too. Just like Yahoo did once. You go and change your configuration within a specified date, or you will automatically be opted out of everything. Don't send them an email to tell about it. Just make them see this the first thing when they sign in. Then, when they have changed the settings, or clicked the "I'll do it later" button, they can be taken to wherever they were going. Then people will basically be giving you their consent to send them emails. This can be held up in court, I think, though IANAL. And you can also watch the load on your mail servers come down. Most people here have just signed up to be able to download stuff, and are getting newsletters every week without knowing what's going on. Some of these will go complain to maintainers of some blacklist or the other. Kaboom!
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
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? 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) Ouch, thats a bad ratio, may be because you deal with email in thousands, we normal have to deal with lot less. Frankly, I don't remember the last time I got a virus email, may be more than a month, but I do get lot of spam mails every day. Its interesting you say that spam is a form of advertising (atleast thats what I inferred from your post) I have always wondered who would read that scum. Is there a study somewhere that suggests people actually are able to sell something through spamming. Even ad. banners irritate lot of people, just look at the no. of s/w available to block popups and ads. May be this[^] holds the answer, but its a huge undertaking. I think I have to agree with David here, unless the free-tag is removed from mail service, its going to be difficult. Cheers, Kannan
-
I don't agree. I think it's absolutely universally accepted that if you register on a site in any manner, you're added to the site's newsletter by default. That's certainly my understanding and expectation. If I truly don't want to be contacted, I look for the opt-out checkbox, which is almost always there. David
David Cunningham wrote: I think it's absolutely universally accepted that if you register on a site in any manner, you're added to the site's newsletter by default. If I don't make a consious choise then I didn't agree. Take the license agreements we are typically presented when installing any software as a reference point - they will never assume you agree to the terms, you have to click the damm checkbox and only then it's a valid agreement. You can not make an assumption that just because I double-clicked the setup executable I agree for the terms. Same applies to the websites - if I don't check the checkbox myself then I didn't agree. And when it comes to the newsletters it's particularly annoying to have all those checkboxes pre-selected because it indicates the site has created the traps for me fall into.
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
-
Chris Maunder wrote: 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? Maybe, but there's also the question of perceived worth. Quick question: Which are you more likely to buy at the market, the $5 bottle of wine or the $30 bottle of wine? The web server hand-built by Sassy Sheila down the street for $500, or the PowerEdge from Dell for $3000? Chris Maunder wrote: 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 already have a demand about the availability and pricing of goods. Eg food advertisements in supermarkets. I hadn't thought of that. I'll concede that it can go either way here. Chris Maunder wrote: But what about my final point: would you welcome advertising that was about stuff you were truly interested in? That I agreed to receive? Yes. I agree to this all the time for 'free' trade magazines. I get the free subscription in exchange for some possibly unwanted but focused advertisements. Unsolicited? Not by email. It's a waste of both my and my employer's time and money. I believe that it is the devious and unscrupulous behavior of spammers that really turns people off. P.S. Your link from the Economist web site is currently the 'Great Debate' among Marketing professors at many universities. They are trying to define the modern state of ethics in advertising. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
Sean Cundiff wrote: Maybe, but there's also the question of perceived worth. Quick question: Which are you more likely to buy at the market, the $5 bottle of wine or the $30 bottle of wine? :D I never said dropping your price to combat someone else's price drop is savvy marketing ;) Sean Cundiff wrote: I hadn't thought of that. I'll concede that it can go either way here. Maybe we should take this to the soapbox. We're being far too polite here ;) Sean Cundiff wrote: would you welcome advertising that was about stuff you were truly interested in? That I agreed to receive? Nope - that you knew nothing about. I've talked to some friends about this and I realised that I truly would like to get advertising if it's very carefully targetted. I *love* reading catalogs of gadgets. I love drooling over snowboards or roadbikes. I'll even spend an entire subway journey leafing through computer ads to get an idea of just how out of date my 6 month old laptop is. Anyone who wants to send me ads for wrist computers or the latest and greatest cellphones can knocki 'emselves out. BUT: send me another ad about brake rotors in China and I will start looking for my postal worker's trenchcoat. My feelings are that it's not the ads - it's the irrelevance, frequency and inappopriateness of them that is the real cause. Irrelevance because I'm never going to buy; frequency because while 10 ads a month mean nothing, 10,000 will mean I'm paying a surcharge on my ADSL connection. Inappropriatness because if a spam with porn pops up in my preview pane while I'm talking to someone in my office then that's just not on. Sean Cundiff wrote: They are trying to define the modern state of ethics in advertising. I'd imagine that would depend on the media and the segment. Do you have any good links to the highlights? cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Chris Maunder wrote: Advertising can be used to create demand. It can also be used to inform consumers who already have a demand about the availability and pricing of goods. Eg food advertisements in supermarkets. What you are saying here is basically the difference between creating Primary Demand and Secondary Demand. Primary Demand is the demand for a new product category, for example when you try to convince someone that they need a car. Secondary demand is the demand for a particular brand in a category, for example when you try to convince someone that they need a BMW or a merc. Most of the ads that talk about availability or pricing are trying to create secondary demand for their products (those who just show cool ads are trying to do that too, most of the time, since for example you don't need to be convinced that you need a toothpaste). What did I just say? :confused: Bah, just ignore me. It's too early in the morning as far as I am concerned. Just 8am! :eek: I got up full two hours earlier today.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaRohit Sinha wrote: since for example you don't need to be convinced that you need a toothpaste :~ cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Chris Maunder wrote: 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'. The checkbox should be unchecked initially, so I have to consiously choose to receive anything. Right now it seems to be checked by default and I have to find it and unselect, that puts Code Project right in the same cathegory as every other spammer.
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
George wrote: that puts Code Project right in the same cathegory as every other spammer. You equate a site that will only email you if you provide your email address and don't take the 5 seconds to find and opt-out of any mailings with a company that site scrapes email addresses from newsgroups and web forums and then bombards you with stuff out of the blue and for which you have never shown any interest in. Sites that offer opt-out options, promises to protect your email privacy as much as humanely possible, and gives an undertaking to never on-sell your address is in the same category as companies whose sole line of business is to use an address as a commodity, to be sold for $99 per million? That's harsh. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
The thing that bothers me most about spam isn't the fact that it is unsolicited. Nearly all advertising is unsolicited. I would much rather be watching that movie on TV without being interrupted every 10 minutes by an ad. Spam is just another advertisement. What bothers me about spam, the two things that annoy me in fact, is that it is secretive, and that it is forcefully intrusive. When you watch TV, the ads are relatively easy to trace, and in fact the advertising companies can get in trouble if they breach the code of practice rules. Most spammers deliberately try to hide themselves by using unusual names, or by spoofing someone else email address. This in fact happened to me on an old email account I had. I started receiving bounce backs from email addresses I had never mailed. When I looked at the contents it appeared that someone had been using my address to send spam. The other thing that annoys me, and annoys me most, is the way that spammers try and get around legitimate spam blockers. If I have turned on my junk mail rules, or have installed a spam blocker, it means that I DO NOT WANT SPAM! Why then do the spammers try and get around these blocks. I used to receive spam from one source that came in from the same domain with different users. Why not always use the same email address? why change it if not to avoid simple spam blockers? The only way to get around it is to block entire domains. One of the things that most shows the bloody minded atitude of the spammer is a recent attempt by a bunch of the buggers to sue companies that produce spam blockers. (I'm sorry, I don't have a link) These are all opt in services used by people who do not want spam. To try and put them out of business truely shows how spammers view the rights of the people that they want to peddle to. Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
Hmmm... Mr Morden wrote: The other thing that annoys me, and annoys me most, is the way that spammers try and get around legitimate spam blockers That's an interesting point. What about product placements in movies, and monologues by radio DJ's where they just start talking about a product and how cool it is as if it were truly their personal opinion. Isn't that just as sneaky? Mr Morden wrote: One of the things that most shows the bloody minded atitude of the spammer is a recent attempt by a bunch of the buggers to sue companies that produce spam blockers. Maybe a similar thing to radar detectors, and radar detector detectors, and radar detector detector blockers, and... cheers, Chris Maunder
-
My 2 cents. Chris Maunder wrote: 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. I get 30 to 50 spam per day and not a virus for 3 or 4 weeks. But see below. Chris Maunder wrote: 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? To some limited degree yes it does. I do care about that very much. However totally free speach is not allowed and never has been. Most of the spam I recieve is porn and or body part enhancement adds. I find it not acceptable. Now I am also not nearly as stupid as my 16 year old boy thinks Chris Maunder wrote: What's the difference between junk postal mail and junk email? As many have stated they pay vs you pay. Also there are regulations on what can be sent. Chris Maunder wrote: Business depend on advertising to survive. Some advertisement I do not mind. But let it be from places I do buisness with. CP or other professional groups that do not send me repeat messages every 1/2 hour all day long. Chris Maunder wrote: At the moment spam is totally and utterly untargeted, unregulated, and pretty much confined to porn sites, mortgage brokers, viagra That is the problem. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Also there are regulations on what can be sent. I think this is the key concept here. Imagine if all spam was regulated. I wonder if we would have slowly become used to it and accepted it as just another evil? cheers, Chris Maunder
-
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 SoftwareChris Losinger wrote: 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!!. It's incredible that most people's tolerance level when it comes to email is a hair's width above zero. Maybe it's because it's so easy to bite back due to anonymity or perceived physical separation. Maybe it's just that everyone has a set amount of tolerance and it gets spread so thin because of simple volume. Chris Losinger wrote: 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. And I bet everyone still wants everything on the net - all news sites, resource sites, search sites, Trivia sites, hobby sites - everything - to be free as well. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
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
> You don't feel your tax dollars help the USPS to deliver unwanted mail to your door? ACTUALLY, the USPS does not receive a single cent of Federal Funding, i.e. tax money, and has not since Regans first term, where he made the USPS fully self funded. So that argument does not work. (Sorry) /CMH [And in my opinion that is about the only thing that crazy actor did right.. but that is another discussion]
-
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 They're right here in my intray. :| Seriously: every...single...frigging...worm. In fact I think that if I ever deleted my email address the world would be in big trouble. Do you remember that scene in Ghostbusters where they turn off the matrix that holds the ghosts? And all the ghosts got out? And rampaged around the city? (say this with a valley-girl upward lilt at the end of each sentence to get the full depth of feeling here). It would be like that. Only far, far worse. Jonny Newman wrote: My dad makes the shiney plastic envelope that the postel ones come in Really? That's kinda cool. I guess it could be kind of annoying too if, during Christmas, he looks over the Christmas card haul as they come in and says things like "Hmmm - a double-bonded semi-weight full-fold #6 with custom Bankers Flap. woo-eee! With stenciled inlay and metal clasp? Now *that's workmanship. You don't see envelopes like that these days. Y'know, when I was a lad..." cheers, Chris Maunder
-
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: 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? I think more ISPs and bandwidth providers are actively filtering them now. They started costing ISPs money due to users being down after an infection, and also because the bandwidth in some case would be bloated with them. At the end of the day most decisions are financial. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Warning Link to the minion's animation, do not use. It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
George wrote: that puts Code Project right in the same cathegory as every other spammer. You equate a site that will only email you if you provide your email address and don't take the 5 seconds to find and opt-out of any mailings with a company that site scrapes email addresses from newsgroups and web forums and then bombards you with stuff out of the blue and for which you have never shown any interest in. Sites that offer opt-out options, promises to protect your email privacy as much as humanely possible, and gives an undertaking to never on-sell your address is in the same category as companies whose sole line of business is to use an address as a commodity, to be sold for $99 per million? That's harsh. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: You equate a site that will only email you if you provide your email address and don't take the 5 seconds to find and opt-out of any mailings with a company that site scrapes email addresses from newsgroups and web forums and then bombards you with stuff out of the blue and for which you have never shown any interest in. Actually I adequate to the sites that always check some options I don't really want to be checked to receive something I don't want to receive. Few years back, when I was joining the CP the times were different. If I was joining today and I saw the checkboxes selected to receive newsletters I would most definately either quit registration or simply provide fake or temporary email address just to be safe. The bottom line is, I should not have to opt-out, I should opt-in only. I do not approve anybody to opt me in for anything, and I don't buy your explanation about 5 seconds to find the opt-out options. That is 5 seconds too many. If I wanted the newsletter I would find it and select. If I don't want I should not have to do anything. Period. To me, if something looks like a trap, it is a trap. In that case it's a trap to catch unaware people to receive an email they didn't ask to receive. For whatever - good or bad - reason. The calculation here, quite transparent, is that even if people don't want the newsletter they will be too lazy to go back and unsubscribe. And that kinda leaves a bad taste if you ask me. Now, please don't push the comparisons to extreme and relate to the email-hunters and bots. But in that particular case - the selected checkboxes - there is no difference betweem spamers and CP. They both argue that I wanted something when I clearly didn't ask for it.
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
-
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
Email is almost dead. IM Lives. I can easily envisage better protocols for a future email system then are what are currently being used, and would prevent almost all the current problems. However adoption is the issue, as it is there is no generally accepted 7th and 8th level for the OSI model concerning IM. SPAM will kill email and die with it. It is the perfect example of a parasite and host in conflict. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Warning Link to the minion's animation, do not use. It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
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
You will need the .NET Framework. It is a very usefull installation for you to have. I lets you do many amazing things with downlaods from a site called Code Project. It is availiable for download here[^] :rolleyes:
"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 They're right here in my intray. :| Seriously: every...single...frigging...worm. In fact I think that if I ever deleted my email address the world would be in big trouble. Do you remember that scene in Ghostbusters where they turn off the matrix that holds the ghosts? And all the ghosts got out? And rampaged around the city? (say this with a valley-girl upward lilt at the end of each sentence to get the full depth of feeling here). It would be like that. Only far, far worse. Jonny Newman wrote: My dad makes the shiney plastic envelope that the postel ones come in Really? That's kinda cool. I guess it could be kind of annoying too if, during Christmas, he looks over the Christmas card haul as they come in and says things like "Hmmm - a double-bonded semi-weight full-fold #6 with custom Bankers Flap. woo-eee! With stenciled inlay and metal clasp? Now *that's workmanship. You don't see envelopes like that these days. Y'know, when I was a lad..." cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: It would be like that. Only far, far worse. I just doesn't bare thinking about.....:eek: Chris Maunder wrote: Really? That's kinda cool :cool: Chris Maunder wrote: "Hmmm - a double-bonded semi-weight full-fold #6 with custom Bankers Flap. He actually held the world patent on the self sealing polythene envelopes. The ones where you tear off the plastic tape and that super sticky evil glue is underneith. The patent ran out about 10 years ago and he didn't see the point in re-applying. But he still has the original patent papers somewhere. Chris Maunder wrote: You don't see envelopes like that these days. Y'know, when I was a lad..." :laugh: He does have a little rant when he gets shopping bags that havn't been printed properly. When the ink comes off on your hands etc...HMV was a good example, he was saying how they had enough money to print decent bags, that won't stain your hands if you hold them.
"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] [^]
-
Every morning I get 30 spam messages. I hardly ever get viri. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Same here - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
Every morning I get 30 spam messages. I hardly ever get viri. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Me too. Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
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? In the UK we have something called the "Mailing Preference Service". If you elect to, you can ask them to register that you do not want to receive junk postal mail. Companies do seem to honour it - I haven't had junk postal mail for ages now. IMHO, this should apply to commercial email as well. I don't want either unless I explicitly ask for it. Personally, I never buy anything based on unsolicited mail (of either kind) so it's a waste of time sending it to me. FYI here's a neat trick if you receive postal junk mail. You know the prepaid postal envelopes you get with credit card applications etc? Use them to send junk mail from other companies back to them. There's a real sense of achievement in sending American Express application forms for Barclaycard. :laugh: Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In