More on Spam

[Hooper]

i was just thinking.. what would happen if everybody used "ADV" and it became law (and yes, the usa can legislate other countries... at least the majority of them.. and in the end the major bandwidth providers are all based out of countries that have strong ties with the usa.)?

follow me here...

everybody begins using it... eventually all commercial email is getting filtered into your "Bulk" box... this decreases the financial return of bulk mailing substantially but also means that marketers are no longer viewed as criminals. places like "spews" may still exist, but they would no longer have much purpose aside from bitching about "fast money grab" mailers who do not label.

As the value drops until it eventually levels out at some point two things happen.
now that it is a major crime to send advertisements without labeling you will only see the occasionaly fast money grab spammer and complaints suddenly actually carry weight because it's no longer a question of whether you opted in or not, it's a question of whether it was labeled properly (and yes, set up a filter to move all lists you DID opt into into your inbox even though they are labeled as bulk)

Additionally because now the law allows advertisments to be sent mailers no longer have to worry about hosting and software because they can send away without paying for special software to rotate ip's.. special hosts who turn a blind eye.. expensive landing hosts that are only 80% reliable at best. Accordingly the costs of mailing go down.

So in summary, a labeling system will
1) decrease the financial returns of mailing
2) decrease the costs of mailing.
3) eliminate the legal exposure of marketers

[RawAlex]

Hooper, nice idea, but it would be followed by forgeign spammers not using ADV and ending up in your main mail, and everyone would move off shore, and things would still be the same.

I still get at least one spam per week from child porn or "teen nudes" sites... making stuff illegal didn't make it stop.

You assume everyone will play by the rules, and in reality they won't. People are stupid enough to spam the same list over and over again with the EXACT same offer, for the EXACT same product... it is sad, and it is a waste.

The US can legislate until they are blue in the face, it just ain't going to change much of anything, it will just move the problem.

Alex

[KC]

Originally posted by Hooper@May 16 2003, 12:06 PM
i was just thinking.. what would happen if everybody used "ADV" and it became law (and yes, the usa can legislate other countries... at least the majority of them.. and in the end the major bandwidth providers are all based out of countries that have strong ties with the usa.)?

follow me here...

everybody begins using it... eventually all commercial email is getting filtered into your "Bulk" box... this decreases the financial return of bulk mailing substantially but also means that marketers are no longer viewed as criminals. places like "spews" may still exist, but they would no longer have much purpose aside from bitching about "fast money grab" mailers who do not label.

As the value drops until it eventually levels out at some point two things happen.
now that it is a major crime to send advertisements without labeling you will only see the occasionaly fast money grab spammer and complaints suddenly actually carry weight because it's no longer a question of whether you opted in or not, it's a question of whether it was labeled properly (and yes, set up a filter to move all lists you DID opt into into your inbox even though they are labeled as bulk)

Additionally because now the law allows advertisments to be sent mailers no longer have to worry about hosting and software because they can send away without paying for special software to rotate ip's.. special hosts who turn a blind eye.. expensive landing hosts that are only 80% reliable at best. Accordingly the costs of mailing go down.

So in summary, a labeling system will
1) decrease the financial returns of mailing
2) decrease the costs of mailing.
3) eliminate the legal exposure of marketers

California already has such a law on the books. It's had little or no effect.

Maybe if it was a national effort it would be more effective, however I still think it's too difficult to enforce and therefore woulndn't be effective.

I know CJ loves analogies, so I'll throw one more out. And no CJ, it's not about farming.....

Getting spammers to all follow a "code of conduct" would be much harder than getting 100,000+ (a rough guess at the number of spammers nationwide or at least in the world) untethered donkeys to follow you.

Spam will remain a problem until a solution to block all unsolicted email, not just UCE is widely deployed.

It can't be solved with legistlation.. Even if you give spammers the death penalty for getting caught spamming... the spam will still flow! Legistlation isn't the answer.

[KC]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 16 2003, 01:36 PM
The US can legislate until they are blue in the face, it just ain't going to change much of anything, it will just move the problem.

I agree, I think the problem can only be solved with technology.

The same way technology has given us virus scanners and encryption.. technology will eventually solve the problem.

[RawAlex]

The solution requires that SMTP is replaced with something secure, that confirms the sender, limits access to only valid senders, and throttles output to stop major spew attacks.

All mail should be 100% traceable. ISPs should be able to say, without a doubt, exactly where an email comes from.

Until them, spammers will spam.

Alex

[Winetalk.com]

RawAlex,
like it or not,
but spammers will have bigger grave stones than you will
;-)))

[Rolo]

So he/she with the biggest grave stones wins this game we call life? ;-)))

I better start making plans for my own pyramid ;-)))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Rolo@May 16 2003, 02:41 PM
So he/she with the biggest grave stones wins this game we call life? ;-)))

I better start making plans for my own pyramid ;-)))

yeap, you got it
;-))

why do you think Jews bringt stones when they visit the dead and not flowers?
;-))))

the one with bigger stone - wins,
and I collect (and produce) mine when I can



quote from one Russian movie...

"The happiness was big, very big,
than it got smaller and smaller,
'till it reached the size of a kidney stone"
;-)))

[RawAlex]

Serge, the size of the headstone doesn't interest me, I will be obviously gone and buried at that point... if that is the reason to spam, then I have no reason to spam.

Alex

[SykkBoy]

http://dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?a...rticle_id=23914

hmmm, basically FTC is giving up and relying on admins to close their open relays.....


something odd in that article:
Clickformail.com, Austin, TX, accused by the FTC of charging consumers $49.95 for access to credit card offers they could have obtained for free by using an Internet search engine.

Why is that illegal? They are providing information people are willing to pay for...maybe people that don't have the time or skills to look up? Should it then be illegal for the kid who mows our lawn to charge us...since I could do it myself for free?

I used to make money writing "how-to" booklets and placing tiny classified ads in newspapers and made a nice little chunk of change...should that be illegal since people could have went and found that information themselves while I took the time to research it and put it into a viable package for them???

sometimes I wonder about the priorities of the fucking government...shouldn't we be spending this money on more bombs to drop on brown people who live in the desert?

I'm all for protecting people from ripoffs and scams like the Nigerian Letter Scam, but this is ridiculous.....

[sextoyking]

Good Points Sykk!!!

I mean shit now Fast food places get sued for making ppl fat??

LOL

[cj]

Originally posted by sharky@May 16 2003, 10:39 AM
I see there are a few closed-minded people here.

Fact of the matter is

1) noone should send 1000 of the same emails to the same email address. (if you have 1000 different email addresses, it's a little different!)
2) Irresponsible spammers are giving responsible mailers a bad rap. Not everyone uses their removes list as a source for valid email addresses.
3) If the mailers are responsible and abide by many of the state laws, by using either "ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT" in their subject lines, anyone can filter that email without ever having to look at it. Problem solved
4) If email users employ a simple filter as I mentioned above, they will easily filter out any email I, and any other RESPONSIBLE mailer, send.
5) Adult mailers should only have qualified lists. Meaning double opt-in or adult site member/user lists. Nothing else. Don't promote adult to a list you obtained that targets car enthusiasts or something else non-adult related.
6) Always process removes promptly.
7) Handle any complaints responsibly.

Sharky, you just described my perfect world!

I LOVE the principal of direct marketing, and the Internet allows so many amazing ways to target your audience like asking them their interests and finding out whether the surfer likes knitting or tennis, is male or female and how much money they earn each year ...

But there are always greedy folks who want the biggest headstone.
Serge, the bulk of spammers will be lucky if they can afford a burial plot when they die ... not all spammers are as clever & stable as those you know of. Drop by for a visit and I'll organise a dinner with our mentally challenged spammer population. Not too many bright sparks.

[cj]

Originally posted by T-Rav@May 16 2003, 11:22 AM
It's just not that big of a deal. Most of the anti-spam arguments are based on propaganda and bullshit in my opinion. I agree with saretta, I think most of the public outcry is because the government isn't getting their cut. Neither is AOL or Microsoft, so they are going to brainwash everyone into thinking spam will bring the end of the world if we don't stop it now. As soon as these fuckers get their cut, you won't hear so much about it.

*sigh*

It must be nice for you to have so little other things to do with your time that you have time to delete spam every day.

Or perhaps you are one of those who gets 10 a day and can't see what the rest of us are complaining about? That's ok ... when you've been on the net a little longer & your name is on every remove list around you might understand ... the fact that you get so little spam that you can tell that someone added your address to a few spam lists is pretty funny ... you must have had a lot before if you noticed that.

What do you mean spam arguments are based on propaganda & bullshit?! What's propaganda about the points I have made so far? They are my points, not the governments points ... or did you just jump in and let your fingers vomit on the keyboard?

There is more than public outcry here ... there are adult webmasters who UNDERSTAND the way it all works but who are still sick of dealing with so much spam. My views on spam have nothing to do with the government, so save the brainwashed by microsoft crap and actually bother to read what we are talking about ...

AOL & Microsoft ARE going to do something - it will probably not be a better solution than we have now but I'm curious to see what it is they are thinking will solve the problem.

I also agree with Hooper. The Internet is a public place. A very free public place. I personally believe it should be policed as little as possible, and people if they choose to get on the Internet should accept personal responsibility for what happens on it. After all, no one is forcing you to check your email...holding a gun to your head saying "check your email or you get a bullet in the brain".

wtf?!?! the Internet is free? um .... i actually pay for my internet access, i pay for my computer and i pay for the server that directs my mail to me. what internet are you using?

and you are saying because nobody holds a gun to my head to use email that its my fault i get spam because i choose to use email? LMAO that's even lamer than KC's "if you are too dumb to filter spam you deserve to get it".

If you don't like it...don't get on the Internet, or create your own Intranet. Find another way to make your money or get your entertainment. I doubt you will be missed.

T-rav, if that's the most valuable contribution you can give to this discussion, I doubt you'll be missed either.

[Lisa]

Originally posted by cj@May 17 2003, 11:03 AM
Drop by for a visit and I'll organise a dinner with our mentally challenged spammer population.

I'm busy that night...

[Torone]

Sykk makes a very good point about sueing because the client COULD have gotten whatever for free by doing this or that...I think I'll sue my Ford place. I could have fixed my brakes for free, if I had made time and had the machines and tools.

A guy drives his car into the garage and tells the mechanic, "It's runnibg rough.".
Mechanic opens the hood, looks at the engine, and taps the carguretor with a hammer. The engine settles down and runs smoothly. "That'll be $25.00.".
Customer: "$25.00! All you did was tap it a couple of times with a hammer!".
Mechanic: "Let me get you an itemized bill."
The bill reads:
2 taps with hammer-$1.00
Knowing where to tap-$24.00


Spam is a bit inconvenient; but I can put up with most of it, What really pisses me off is when some spammer 'spoofs' my enail addy as the sender.

As for police...here in Houston, if you want to talk to a cop, you need to drop by Rick's.

[RawAlex]

Sykky, they didn't have all the info in that article:

"One Web-based scam claimed that consumers who paid a one-time fee of $49.95 were guaranteed to receive a "100% unsecured" VISA or MasterCard credit card with a credit limit up to $5,000.00. Consumers who clicked on the "Claim your card NOW," icon on the Web site and entered their checking account information received a confirmation page or e-mail that typically stated, "Approved! Congratulations! Your membership has been approved." In fact, according to the FTC, what consumers received was access to a Web page containing hyperlinks to various companies that purportedly issue credit cards -- a list of hyperlinks that would have been available free to consumers who used a search engine. "

The flaw is promising a 100% unsecured credit card... they couldn't do that with just a list of links...

Read the rest of it here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/05/swnetforce.htm

Alex

[SykkBoy]

Ah, ok
makes mroe sense now

I should sue those guys for making me go off on a tangent...fuckers made me burn braincells and everyone knows how much I hate that...

although...I now have an idea...just have to tweak the marketing a bit )))

[RawAlex]

I am sure there is a market for being a clearing house for information in this manner... and I am sure people would pay for that service.

I hope the FTC decides to nail a few more of these morons...

Alex

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 17 2003, 03:00 PM
I am sure there is a market for being a clearing house for information in this manner... and I am sure people would pay for that service.

I hope the FTC decides to nail a few more of these morons...

Alex

I'm sure there is

me too, especially if I create a similar service but without false promises ))

[Hooper]

Sykk... you might be suprised at who exactly that was that was busted.

You probably know them... i'll give you one hint.. it's not me

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Hooper@May 18 2003, 10:12 AM
Sykk... you might be suprised at who exactly that was that was busted.

You probably know them... i'll give you one hint.. it's not me

Hmmmm, I can only think of a couple other Texans...
)))

[RawAlex]

I got this today:

Welcome to our Bargains Depot newsletter! We just received a request to add EMAILADDRESS@REMOVED.COM to our mailing list.

Each day we hunt up a great offer from an online merchant, from leading retailers to unique niche shops, and deliver it to your inbox. Don't miss an exciting issue.

Each Bargains Depot newsletter includes easy to use unsubscribe instructions. If you no longer want our newsletter, it's a breeze to let us know.

Sincerely,
The Bargains Depot Team

Gee thanks... opted in without permission, I have to do something to opt out, and I don't even know if the company is actually going to respect the opt out or just use it to confirm me for 1000 other lists.

Dumbasses.

Alex

[T-Rav]

cj, cj, cj...again with the personal attacks. It is interesting, considering how much I like and respect you, that we disagree as often as we do. It is also interesting how quickly you resort to personal attacks when I voice an opinion that differs from yours. Who pissed in your cheerios?

when you've been on the net a little longer & your name is on every remove list around you might understand ... the fact that you get so little spam that you can tell that someone added your address to a few spam lists is pretty funny ... you must have had a lot before if you noticed that.

I do not spend all day deleting spam. I change email addy's frequently, I have "spam" email accounts that i use to sign up for things online, because I know they will submit those addy's to spam lists. I check those addy's about once a week, and since the only reason I have those addy's is to field spam I can delete everything at once.

What do you mean spam arguments are based on propaganda & bullshit?! What's propaganda about the points I have made so far? They are my points, not the governments points ... or did you just jump in and let your fingers vomit on the keyboard?

I often times vomit on the keyboard...its my secret way of protecting myself from the evils of spam. However, I said that MOST of the anti-spam arguments were based on propaganda and bullshit. Not YOUR arguments.

After I learned how to read, I went back and read all of your posts. Let me boil it down a little. You believe spam is out of control and it is a big waste of your time and your money. You are also concerned about people that aren't as technically savvy, and would like to see something in place to protect them from spam.

Let me boil down my position. It is not a big waste of my time and money. I also believe in personal responsibility, so I'm not too terribly concerned about how other people use their email, filters, etc.

wtf?!?! the Internet is free? um .... i actually pay for my internet access, i pay for my computer and i pay for the server that directs my mail to me. what internet are you using?

The type of free I was referring to is this one: freedom, liberty...not free as in it doesn't cost anything. I believe the Internet is currently relatively "free" from extensive legislation and control from government entities. I think that is a good thing. I think it is this way because the Internet is a relatively new way of communicating. I think it is very important to keep it "free" from legislation as long as possible. That is the main reason I don't mind spam. I would rather deal with spam than have a government agency try to control it. And to answer your question...I use the same Internet you do.

T-rav, if that's the most valuable contribution you can give to this discussion, I doubt you'll be missed either.

You know you'd miss me cj
It is not my style to make valuable contributions. I like to make broad reaching ridiculous statements based very little on fact or research. Debating is often times an excercise in futility, and I hate going to the gym

[sharky]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 19 2003, 11:20 AM
I got this today:

Gee thanks... opted in without permission, I have to do something to opt out, and I don't even know if the company is actually going to respect the opt out or just use it to confirm me for 1000 other lists.

Dumbasses.

Alex

I got the same damn thing. about 20 of em.


it's guys like that that give mailers a bad name

[cj]

Originally posted by T-Rav@May 19 2003, 01:34 PM
cj, cj, cj...again with the personal attacks. It is interesting, considering how much I like and respect you, that we disagree as often as we do. It is also interesting how quickly you resort to personal attacks when I voice an opinion that differs from yours. Who pissed in your cheerios?

T-rav, i've learnt over my time on the boards that people only take posts as personal attacks when the poster says something true ...

If you chose to take that personally that's your problem, not mine ...

Your posts are always inflammatory, but then you act like a cry baby when someone questions your comments. You rarely post anything that is based on the discussion because you post first, read later, making your posts have little relevance to the points having been addressed so far. Its a posting style of lazy people, who are only posting to get their advertising on the board as much as possible. We don't 'always disagree', i just like watching you defend the broad sweeping statements you make ...

Believe me, I could get a lot more personal ... but you are a 'too easy' target.

Let me boil down my position. It is not a big waste of my time and money. I also believe in personal responsibility, so I'm not too terribly concerned about how other people use their email, filters, etc.

simple question t-rav, how many spam emails do you get per day? 30 or 40? How many business emails do you get per day? a handful? Like I said before, if you can actually notice when someone adds you to a spam list, then you obviously don't have an email problem ... it sounds like you go to an awful lot of trouble maintaining multiple accounts, good for you ... would you like a medal or a chest to pin it on?

I hope the problems get sorted out before you have to experience a large volume of email ... my opinion was closer to yours once, just delete it and stop bitchin, but after watching spam double and triple this year, i'm sick of it and sick of how much of my time it takes up to ensure i'm not losing valuable business email in amongst the spam. I do use many systems for reducing it, my filters catch around 300 messages a day, i sign up with specific emails to sites i know will spam me, but around 100 - 300 per day still get through - this amount grows every day until I set up a new batch of filters. the cycle continues week after week.

It is not my style to make valuable contributions. I like to make broad reaching ridiculous statements based very little on fact or research. Debating is often times an excercise in futility, and I hate going to the gym

you said it!

[T-Rav]

T-rav, i've learnt over my time on the boards that people only take posts as personal attacks when the poster says something true ...

If you chose to take that personally that's your problem, not mine ...

I never said I took anything personally. I just pointed out the personal attacks, which they were. I'm not sure if you noticed the tone of my post, but it was intended to make light of the situation and express the ability to laugh at myself. I've always said, if you can laugh at yourself you are guaranteed a lifetime of joy. It seems like you take yourself very seriously.

Your posts are always inflammatory, but then you act like a cry baby when someone questions your comments. You rarely post anything that is based on the discussion because you post first, read later, making your posts have little relevance to the points having been addressed so far. Its a posting style of lazy people, who are only posting to get their advertising on the board as much as possible.

Talk about a broad reaching statement. My posts are "always" inflammatory? I don't remember acting like a "crybaby". I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many, if any inflammatory posts by me. I do read every post prior to making my post. If you feel my posts have no relevance to the discussion at hand that is your opinion.

My post was relevant to the discussion. I voiced my opinion and brought up new points regarding the "freedom" of the Internet, and how I believe it is important to keep it as free (and by free, I mean, freedom and liberty) as possible. That was my stance, regardless of how many spams you get or I get...is in my opinion, not the issue. Your "points" on the other hand were the same old shit we see time and time again. I pay for my Internet, I pay for my servers, I get too much spam, it wastes my valuable time. If you would like me to address those every time you say it, that would be a waste of my time.

My opinions are often very gray and meant to make people think about the other side of the coin. I am not trying to win a debate. Sometimes pointing out the extremes is a good way of making a point.

I hope the problems get sorted out before you have to experience a large volume of email ... my opinion was closer to yours once, just delete it and stop bitchin, but after watching spam double and triple this year, i'm sick of it and sick of how much of my time it takes up to ensure i'm not losing valuable business email in amongst the spam.

I can appreciate this point of view, and maybe my opinion will change in the future.