Forum Moderators: phranque
He recognises the problem though, and quotes that famous DMS quote:
"We don't think an opt-in regime has economic viability," says DMA Senior Vice President Jerry Cerasale. "If you go with opt-in, you foreclose the economic viability of this as a marketing channel."
But then, things are always economically viable when somone else pays for them on your behalf, aren't they?
[tinyurl.com...]
Jeff Carlson's article on the Palm i705 in TidBITS-635 made a passing reference to a well-known Pfizer drug for men, technically known as sildenafil citrate. Our mail error logs indicate over 2,500 TidBITS issues were rejected by over 1,000 sites because they contained the drug's name
Pretty clear filters are not the total answer, but I leave the filter on in my Earthlink account and am amazed at how much garbage it catches. So, I guess they are a bad idea, but I still use them.
AT&T caught a lot of flak recently for installing filters without giving users a choice as to whether or not to use them.
The problem of spam has just gotten too big to care about the occasional marketing email or similar that gets innocently caught.
Richard Lowe
I've used SpamCop (et., al.) but that only handles the UCE/SPAM once it has been sent, directly costs me for subscription fees (fuel) and was monumentally time consuming on my part.
Opting out is an excercise in futility, for all it does is give the UCE/SPAMer a fresh addy to distribute.
Perhaps we should look at the UCE/SPAM problem from another perspective, say from the bottom up instead of top down? Pro-active as opposed to Re-active.
Take the concept of "Honey Pot" for example.
[e-secure-db.us...]
[rr.sans.org...]
[veracity.com...]
[lists.insecure.org...]
I do a manual variation of this concept averaging one notified ISP kill a week, or better put, much better than when I was using SpamCop regularly. Let 'em spend more time looking for another ISP <chuckle>.
Network admins loooooooooove to hear from folks like me too, as they fear being black listed and will go to almost any length to shut down a potential UCE/SPAMer.
Oh, and as for the taste of those kills?
"Taste just like chicken!" <burp!>
Just a little food for thought.
Pendanticist.
Network admins loooooooooove to hear from folks like me too, as they fear being black listed and will go to almost any length to shut down a potential UCE/SPAMer.
Goto NANAE and you'll see the number of network admins who lie about shutting them down.. To name a few, Verio, XO, PacBell, OH, here's a favorite: wholesalebandwidth.
This is VERY proactive. Sites hosting or using blocks within SPEWS and sending email out from them often get reject messages from the MTA, even innocents. The idea is for the innocents to complain to the hosts that let the spew out, letting them make the choice: Me or the spammer?
Unfortunately, often the choice is to let the spammer stay, and they'll send an email out stating that the site has been shut down or that they've been warned and they won't do it any more...blah blah... email spammers lie, hosts that allow the spew out of their boxes and don't shut them down lie also. Innocent email bounces. But that's proactive. The only real choice for an innocent is to switch hosts or isps.
I totally agree with richlowe.
The problem of spam has just gotten too big to care about the occasional marketing email or similar that gets innocently caught.
