| 12:14 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Are you sure it's a man?
| 12:15 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'd like to see a spammer incarcerated until they sat down a read each and every piece of spam they have ever sent.
That should be enough to drive a person crazy.
| 5:34 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The worst thing about it is they don't care. Spammers are the brat in the back of the theatre throwing juju-drops in your date's hair. There the ones putting bubble gum under the handrails in public places, writing phone numbers on the walls, the schoolyard bullies shaking down the weak for their lunch money.
The only way to beat this is to not own it. Their philosophy is if you p*** off 10,000 people and get one lead, it's all worth it. By allowing them to get to you, they've just marked you as their territory.
Personally I think we should pull the plug on email and make it a paid service only with fines for abuse. If it cost money to annoy people it wouldn't be so rampant.
Of course that would never work. But since we're dreaming . . . . :-)
I say strapped to a chair watching endless episodes of Barney. Better yet, Ashlee Simpson doing the Star Spangled Banner.
| 5:59 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|If it cost money to annoy people it wouldn't be so rampant. |
Junk snail mail and telemarketing proves this theory wrong.
| 8:28 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
greenleaves - I've worked in the "junk mail" industry, and you can be sure that every piece mailed is carefully considered. The sender spends a lot of many - thousands of times much per piece - as a spammer. If spam cost even 1 cent per email, you can be sure that 99.9+% of it would be gone.
| 8:39 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|over and over again for 10 to 12 hours |
Liane you are way to nice :). That's in the realm of pleasant. 10 - 12 years of the same tune might have a more interesting effect on said spammer/spammerette...
| 9:04 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think you lock spammers in a room with only peanut butter to eat and only salt water to drink.
| 10:50 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think you lock spammers in a room with only salt water to drink...
| 2:45 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think one should ignore them. If no one pays attention to them, they can't make any money, and they have no reason for being.
Or so one hopes.... I was lucky. Gone a day and a half, only 30 junk emails. Life is good.
| 8:40 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Make 'em live on Canvey Island....
| 10:54 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You actually still spend time looking at spam messages? Time to look at another software...
| 11:13 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a better way against spam Joe's. I just forward my mail to another host (don't mention names) and with a click I delete spam.I use my normal mail only to answer
| 6:26 pm on Jan 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Junk snail mail and telemarketing proves this theory wrong. |
I didn't say it would STOP it, I said it wouldn't be so rampant. Sure, the telemarketers and junk mail keep coming, but you don't get 1400 of them every day. That is, unless you think You May Have Already Won and responded to the mailer. :-)
| 6:48 pm on Jan 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If email worked like this,
1) Server sending email sends request and ip to recieving server.
2) Recieving server accepts request and returns acceptance to ip.
3) Sending server sends message to recieving server
Sender can't spoof ip address. If sender spoofs ip the server will call upon spoofed address to get email. Spoofed address will not have any email to send.
How email currently works,
1) Recieving server accepts email
You block ip address and sender just spoofs new one.
Email is flawed but could easily be fixed. Spam only exists because of the ability of the senders to spoof ip address's. If they couldn't spoof then you could just block ip's. Why this hasn't been fixed yet is the real mystery.