Government actions to limit spam
-
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: I think this is the key concept here. Agreed! Have a Good Day "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin M."
-
Chris 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
Chris Maunder wrote: 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. as i see it, there's a differene between the content here and my inbox. here, you (and your ISP) are providing the service via http, so you should be able to throw ads at us via http (and you do) to help you pay for the cost of providing it. but with my inbox, I pay my ISP $44/mo, and nowhere does it says i need to be able to accept ads as part of it.
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
> 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 Hansson wrote: 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) My Bad. The US then has the only truly self-funded postal system that I know of, which is very cool. You could of course argue that there was very likely a hundred years of government support and funding that got the USPS to the point of self-funding, and that should be amortized in. David
-
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
Colin Davies wrote: Email is almost dead. IM Lives. Being able to leave a message is still more important than talking in real time. Maybe instant messaging and delayed messaging will merge into the same application, but email/voice mail/message mail (whatever) won't go away anytime soon. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
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] [^]
-
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... */
Do you honestly feel that when you sign in, and you see a check box with 'send me email', and all you have to do is uncheck it, that it's a trap? Isn't there a point where you have to start taking a small amount notice of what you do? George wrote: I should not have to opt-out, I should opt-in only. Isn't the very act of providing an email address an opt-in action? OR at least a statement that you are amenable to opt-in but if you want to opt-out, then "click here"? I'm not trying to be argumentative on this one - I am truly trying to understand the point at which companies that provide internet users with free services at no obligation and who are non-invasive and respect readers privacy step over the line when it comes to how they present offers. George wrote: 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. Isn't it fair, though, that if you are that lazy that you are unwilling to spend the 5 seconds to read a sign-in form that you are essentially being unfair to a site that is offering you free services? "Give me this now and don't you dare ask me for anything in return". George wrote: Now, please don't push the comparisons to extreme and relate to the email-hunters and bots. You said that "that puts Code Project right in the same cathegory as every other spammer." "Every other spammer" includes those peddling kiddy porn who have bought your email address of email hunters. I'm a little offended to say the least that a weekly newsletter from CodeProject is, in your mind, equivalent to the basest form of unsolicited, off-topic, inappropriate email carpet bombing. There is a big difference between email someone who has signed up for an email and emailing someone whose email address you bought from an email hunter. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
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
First of all, nice thinker topic, and I don't mind CP mail. 1) 99% of my inbox was spam until I changed my email address last month. Now it is 0%. 2) I'd like the bastard spammers to justify why they feel I need the EXACT SAME message sent to me 15 times in 10 minutes. I am not suffering from Alzheimers (in which case they should target THAT medicine to me). 3) What a wonderful world it would be if we COULD get just "good" junk mail (ie your examples). Unfortunately, my name magically gets sold to hundreds of Satan's minions. Add in the WebBots scanning forums. 4) For some reason, I suspect the average IQ is dropping daily for these "persons". Recently, I've been getting form letters with "Dear ," (no name!). 5) The difference between junk snail mail and junk email: lots of trees, lots of effort in packaging, postal fees, and tracability (postmarks). Remember, it's a federal offence to commit mail fraud. Not sure if that's the same for email. As for legislation, start with requiring spammers to include their real FROM address, not a forged one. If it's legit, and we've really opted-in, we're not going to complain or mail-bomb are we? Next, ensure the same repurcussions for email fraud apply as for regular mail. Next, limit them to no duplicate emails per addressee per day. Next, forbid them from ever selling address lists. I opted-in to company A and only company A. Everyone else can damn well wait for me to opt-in to them specifically.
-
Do you honestly feel that when you sign in, and you see a check box with 'send me email', and all you have to do is uncheck it, that it's a trap? Isn't there a point where you have to start taking a small amount notice of what you do? George wrote: I should not have to opt-out, I should opt-in only. Isn't the very act of providing an email address an opt-in action? OR at least a statement that you are amenable to opt-in but if you want to opt-out, then "click here"? I'm not trying to be argumentative on this one - I am truly trying to understand the point at which companies that provide internet users with free services at no obligation and who are non-invasive and respect readers privacy step over the line when it comes to how they present offers. George wrote: 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. Isn't it fair, though, that if you are that lazy that you are unwilling to spend the 5 seconds to read a sign-in form that you are essentially being unfair to a site that is offering you free services? "Give me this now and don't you dare ask me for anything in return". George wrote: Now, please don't push the comparisons to extreme and relate to the email-hunters and bots. You said that "that puts Code Project right in the same cathegory as every other spammer." "Every other spammer" includes those peddling kiddy porn who have bought your email address of email hunters. I'm a little offended to say the least that a weekly newsletter from CodeProject is, in your mind, equivalent to the basest form of unsolicited, off-topic, inappropriate email carpet bombing. There is a big difference between email someone who has signed up for an email and emailing someone whose email address you bought from an email hunter. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Isn't it fair, though, that if you are that lazy that you are unwilling to spend the 5 seconds to read a sign-in form that you are essentially being unfair to a site that is offering you free services? Yes Chris, people are like that, and we have to deal with it. When you are offering a service, free or otherwise, you have to think about your "customers". Most people never read forms, license agreements, etc carefully. Maybe some people don't bother to read the text next to checkboxes and radio buttons that are checked, because "the work has already been done for me". And as George pointed out, no one wants to be opted in for something by someone else. Not saying this for CP, because CP is something we know and trust, but let any other site do this to me, and I'm outta there faster than I can click the little close button at the top right corner. I'm sure you are aware of the several blacklists that are floating around and are maintained on the internet these days. These lists identify sources of spam, and every mail server that subscribes to one of these lists (and more and more of them are doing so), rejects all mail originating from the mail servers listed in these lists. The maintainers of some of these lists advocate not just opt-in, but double opt-in mechanisms, where you are sent a mail with a url/password, etc and you have to use the info in the mail to verify or confirm your registration. People are getting more and more paranoid. This is affecting legit businesses more than spammers, but you need to stay one step ahead all the time, just like the spammers, in order to avoid as much trouble as you can. Having a good opt-in policy will go a long way in establishing goodwill. And once you start doing it, by all means boast about it. This will draw people's attention to this fact and will increase the trust in their minds. Chris Maunder wrote: I'm a little offended to say the least that a weekly newsletter from CodeProject is, in your mind, equivalent to the basest form of unsolicited, off-topic, inappropriate email carpet bombing. I'm sure that's not what he meant. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
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.
JohnnyG wrote: 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 I have my own (personal) domain name and run my own mail server on an old NT box over my cable modem. Whenever I have to enter my email address on a website, I use the domain name of the site as part of the email address and simply redirect everything addressed to my my domain to my personal inbox. eg. my email address for codeproject would be codeproject@mydomain.com. This means that if I get an email addressed to codeproject@mydomain.com, but it isn't from codeproject, I know they have been handing out my email address without my consent. I can then easily block everything sent to codeproject@mydomain.com and b*tch slap them for selling my email address. :cool: Of course, the downside to this approach is those spam generators that generate random names for a given domain. One day my poor little NT Server and cable connection is going to get hit with about 10,000 identical emails - all redirected to my inbox... X|
There are 10 kinds of people - those that get binary and those that don't.
-
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
Chris Maunder wrote: 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? Product placement in movies. Well, to an extent that is almost expected these days. And I don't know if it really has that much of an effect. It must have some, or the ad companies wouldn't do it. DJ opinions being bought. Not much different to getting a movie or tv star hawking a product. More unethical though. The thing with both of these is that the consumer is not actively trying to block them, and the ad companies aren't trying to prevent the listner/viewer from blocking. For instance, I can mute or change channels with my remote when an annoying ad comes on tv. If there was some signal that an advertiser used to stop my remote from 'blocking' their ad, that is equivalent to spammers trying to get around spam blocking software. Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
-
Colin Davies wrote: Email is almost dead. IM Lives. Being able to leave a message is still more important than talking in real time. Maybe instant messaging and delayed messaging will merge into the same application, but email/voice mail/message mail (whatever) won't go away anytime soon. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Maybe instant messaging and delayed messaging will merge into the same application, Both sonork and gtv permit that already, I really think better systems and protocols can be created though but yes, its going to take ages for the old systems to finally die. Incredible as it appears but FAX is still used. 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