Slashdot Mirror
Legitimate Business Spam
TreeRat sent us a Salon story by Simson Garfinkle about legit companies and spam. Its an interesting piece: it talks mostly about Caldera, but mentions several other offenders. The Spam in my INBOX is somewhere aroung 20-30 a day (mind you most of it is press releases from PR firm mailing lists, and random lists that "helpful" slashdot readers subscribed me to). Thank god for filters. But this is a problem we don't think as much about -- normally we think of spammers as slimeballs in basement sending out a hundred thousand emails advertising 'printer toner sale' or 'hot naked sluts want you'
featuring 900 numbers and typos, not legitimate businesses.
ask for the government to make laws. They do that enough as it is, and invariably make them poorly. Furthermore, they would of course allow loopholes that let legitimit companies send spam, while allowing all bad people to get punished. The absolute last thing I want my govermnet doing is making laws, thank you very much.
yeah did you take the anal adventure package or the vaginal voyage package?
No! You should be glad if they make it illegal. It will make your collection worth more. ;)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
I use nope@hotmail.com. If someone actually has that account, I bet they're pretty pissed. :)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
I will be charitable and assume you are not being serious.
I case you are being serious, then I will assume you believe society has a moral obligation to offer everybody an alternative job to making telemarketing calls.
I've had friends who have had to get this kind of job to survive.
Those who run the business have the choice whether or not to offer that kind of job. People who take the job need the money.
People need to learn personal responsibility for their own actions.
Yes, but for some strange reason you may fail to comprehend, some people find that feeding themselves and their family takes priority over that.
Really, what's up with you and the other poster who replied to me? Have y'all never suffered through having hardly any money, and having to take a stupid job to survive?
You gain nothing by being rude to the caller. He/she is just someone making not much money, and will no power to make it stop. The ones who pay for this kind of stupid show are happily isolated from all your abuse if you attack the poor chap who makes the call.
I had one this long weekend. I started getting spam from my ISP. Not, you understand, a free ISP where Ive agreed to recieve spam, but an ISP where I pay for my Internet access.
So now the weasels are spamming me on behalf of their "business partners." While they certainly won't be my ISP past this weekend, and thier business partners (a nominally legitimate firm) will be getting told how pissed off I am), it's a pretty good example of the problem, with a slightly different spin.
Of course, this example raises it to a whole new level. Had it been the business spamming me, I could have gone after them. Instead, my ISP will doubtless simply retrospectively change their T&Cs to include, "and you will accept any crap our partners give us a kick-back for".
And if you're considering joining IHUG in .au or .nz, don't. Since you'll end up paying for a mountain of unsolicited crap in your inbox.
You ever had administrative responsibility over a server that some spammer has used? Do you know what sort of beating even a modestly powered box running sendmail+FreeBSD takes when it gets abused by a spammer? Do you know what sort of bandwidth a few hundred simultaneous SMTP sessions all sending 20k messages eats up? In short, spam may not be that big of a deal on the client side (procmail is a godsend in this respect), but it's total hell on the mail server that has to distribute all that meat.
I swear, during the Windows install of Real Player 7 you have to uncheck about 5 boxes on 3 different screens to keep them from pushing you crap.
Then they put icons in your browser in your quick launch bar, your systray, your browser, your desktop, and your start menu even when you told the installation not to.
Also the "opt-out" clauses on the page before you download the player are phrased in such a way as to trick someone into agreeing to spam mail when they really don't want it.
Not like it matters, because even if you do opt out they send you their crap anyway.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Why do you think places like Yahoo! and Hotmail exist? To create spammed email accounts! I figured most everybody did this already, created a couple of emails accounts that they used when asked to enter their email address on a Web site or a registration card.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Here's a little story for "legitimate" companies that wish to send advertising. This story is about SSC, which is one of the most reputable companies on the Internet. I would recommend them to anyone, despite this story.
SSC publishes Linux Journal , one of the oldest (if not the oldest) and easily one of the highest signal-over-noise Linux mags available. I had a fairly long subscription to LJ (which, again, I would recommend despite this incident). One day I got e-mail telling me it was time to renew. Well, this e-mail didn't appear to come from SSC. It gave a different site as the place for credit card orders, had non-SSC "From" and "Reply-To" lines, and a non-SSC origin IP. So, uncomfortable about how my e-mail address was getting picked up, I decided to wait until I could call SSC and find out if the e-mail was from their agent or just some random magazine house trying to scam a commission. After I got a paper renewal notice later, I still hadn't gotten around to calling, so I kept putting my renewal off.
That was probably a year or 2 ago. I still haven't gotten around to calling. That's my rotten procrastination habit again, I'm sure. But, my point to legitimate companies is this: This whole time I've been procrastinating, SSC has been without my (probably 5-year) subscription. And that's a company I actually like, sending me a notice I actually wanted. You can probably imagine what I think of companies who send me e-mail when I've never even contacted them.
The moral of this true fable is thus: Go out of your way to demonstrate that you're a previous business contact. Identify who you are and why you have the e-mail address, so that the recipient isn't worried about their personal information getting out. Net folks are far more concerned with whether their privacy than whether they buy something. I'll bet SSC probably knew this, but their agent didn't get it.
(That said, I'll probably go call them and subscribe to Linux Journal again sometime soon. Now I get to wonder about Boardwatch , who is owned by a different company, and wants to charge me more for renewal ($72) than normal people pay for a first subscription. Ah well.)
...and "intelligent slashdot discussion".
--
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
No, Hotmail doesn't sell its lists to spammers. (At list, I really don't hink so.) However, it does expire unused accounts and allow their names to be reused.
How could anyone consider the above as off-topic? Why didn't you moderate any of the parent comments as off-topic since they're all discussing the same topic? If you think it wasn't worth the bonus point usually used by Frac, why not just moderate it as overrated? Did you not care what you called it as long as you reduced Frac's score and karma?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
(Relax, I didn't take this as a flame :) And even if it did work, why should anyone have to take any action to prevent spam? What if I have kids (I don't), and I don't want them receiving "HOT BACKDOOR SLUTZ!!!" emails? Well, honestly, if you don't want them receiving that kind of thing in their e-mail, either supervise their internet usage, don't give them an e-mail account (or monitor it before letting them use it), or don't let them surf. This sort of bridges two issues here, but quite simply the easiest way to prevent this stuff from reaching supposedly "innocent eyes" is to stop them playing around on the internet in the first place. BTW, I wonder when people will finally realize that kids aren't the braindead sponges they appear to be -- "My kid will never see pornography! I monitor all his TV usage." Yeah, except when he's at his friend's house whose dad leaves the XXX tape rack out in the open by the VCR :) > complain to the uplink I'm not sure if you mean "mail server" or "ISP" by that. But, surprise, surprise, most SPAM is anonymous, and comes without valid headers showing who sent it. It sneaks in through open SMTP servers. I meant the ISP. I must say whenever I've complained about spam to a provider, I've gotten a response. Sometimes the response even includes notice of that account's cancellation. Even when your complaint doesn't nail an individual person or account, ISPs take notice. Hell, even when an open SMTP server allows relaying, if the ISP receives enough complaints (or sees unusually high traffic), they'll usually close the holes. If you don't complain at all, there's not even any chance that anything will be corrected. > Set up a junk account. But then to see your order status or any other mail you still need to visit the junk account. Nope, not at all. But by using a "junk" account for all your online transaction stuff, you reduce the crap that pours into your "normal" account. Y'know, the one you give friends & family & cohorts :) You just check the junk box occasionally (or more frequently when you've ordered something recently). Junkbusters does rock, both the site and the proxy. As far as the AT&T bit, write down the times & dates you've told them to piss off, and if they do it more than three times, go to small claims. Spend $70, a couple of hours, and come home with $500 plus your court costs. And a big ego :P Please don't take this as a flame in any way, I just don't think you've really tried the solutions you propose. Have too. Pthbtbtbtbtbt! (raspberry) :) Seriously, though, yes, I have done some of these. I report spammers frequently, get accounts closed, have a spare account that collects much of my junk (the best part is I recently closed it since I haven't ordered anything for awhile ... next time I order stuff I'll use the new one. Hehehehe. Bouncing spam. :), etc. I haven't had the pleasure of suing a telemarketer, but my folks have. That was fun to watch. Hehehehehe. LCDproc looks pretty damn cool, BTW. Hehehe thanks :)
Read my stuff.
I had an account on an ISP, that I stopped using/paying for/was closed.
I year after that I reopened it, to an immediate flood of SPAM, that to this day ( three months later ) will not go away.
I think that I have done the most sensible thing that one can do, have more than one email address.
.mincus
To the porno folks and scam artisits who have given
unsolicited email advertisements a bad name.
THANK YOU!!! Because you left such a bad taste
in everyone's mouth, most legitimate companies will
think twice before flooding people's mailboxes with
advertisements. I'm so much happier that society
agrees with me that email advertisments are scourge;
it's a much better situtation than the sorry state
of acceptance when it comes to other media like TV
or junk snail mail.
- The spam's content, and
- The "legitness" of the sending company.
Sure, most of the spam you get is from clueless scammers, but spam from "legit" companies costs you exactly as much.That's why I'd like to encourage meritorious suits against both classes of spammers, the chickenboners and the "pros". See http://www.suespammers.org for hints on how to do it.
--Tom Geller
Founder, Suespammers.org
Tom Geller
The strangest thing is, a lot of companies that require you to give them an email address (like to download RealPlayer for example) do JavaScript/CGI verification on email addresses to make sure you don't put in fluff. They DON'T block, however, addresses like:
webmaster@insertevilcompanyhere.com
or
root@www.whateverevilcompany.com
ohhh... what i'd do for a .mil domain name!
To be honest, I never really considered that it might use my e-mail to send me an advertisement without first asking my permission.
Come on. It makes me wonder just how internet-savvy this guy is. Anyone who doesn't use an email address dedicated to receiving spam when they provide information for companies is just asking for it. And no, this isn't a new thing for big companies either, because it actually works -- especially for big companies.
Oh, and CmdrTaco? That spam I get typically has fewer typos than the average Slashdot article that you guys post. ;)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
That's the critical difference --- with traditional ads (phone ads, paper ads) the advertising company pays for the distribution.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but in a way, we all pay for snail-mail adverts, too. The post office has to hire people to sort and deliver all the junk that companies send out, and how do you think the post office pays their salaries? Higher postage rates. This is no different than the comment by someone else that we pay $2-3 more per month for Internet access because of spam. We pay more per ounce for a first-class letter than we should have to, because it isn't cheap to employ those people to sort and deliver all of that junk mail. I bet mail delivery people hate paper junk mail as much as sys admins hate spam. After all, they have to physically cart the stuff around.
Disclaimer: I get as much or more spam as real mail, so trust me, I'm no fan of the stuff. But let's keep things in perspective.
what about .ca, .uk, .it, .pl, etc :)
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
I've never seen one that will reject a domain of only one character followed by a .net, .org, etc.
why would it? check out x.com and x.org
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Wow! I thought I was the only one to get the printer toner spam! Cool, I don't feel so alone.
In addition to your points, I don't see why the author wants to restrict pornography spam first.. all spam is a form of harassment, so all of it should be made illegal. This solution also doesn't allow an entire ISP to opt out. ISPs are the ones who pay for the bandwidth used to transmit spam, which results in increased prices for consumers. Any proposal for spam legislation should include a provision for entire domains to opt out of spam.
- is not allowed to be the last letter of a domain name by RFC convention.
--neil
This is plausible, but I still have doubts. Example: I've never bought anything from telemarketers or from random snailmail spammers, but I still recieve telemarketer calls and snailmail spam on a daily basis. Now perhaps I didn't specify plainly enough in my original posting -- one out of every 100 spam e-mails _which gets through_ results in a sale. I haven't ever seen a list, but I'll bet that when you buy a CD with 10 million e-mail addresses on it, the majority of the addresses are duplicates, fakes, NOSPAM-munged, or addresses that aren't being actively checked any more. Also, it's much easier just to hit 'delete' as soon as you see spam than it is to ignore telemarketers or throw away snailmail. So perhaps you have to send out 10,000 e-mails if you want 100 of them to be read, and one sale to be made.
The negative response of the public is all that is holding back the flood right now; the ultimate way to control it would be price rather than legislation - make emails cost a tenth of a cent each, and it would be enough to severely curtail spam without pricing real communication out of the market.
Who would collect the 1/10th of a cent? Who would pay for huge mailing lists like linux-kernel or bugtraq? Would you have to pay if the message was sent and received inside a LAN (like a business or something)?
--neil
Here's a way you can permanently cure your marketing droids of the urge to use spam as a marketing tool. Simply use their e-mail address as the "From" address. Strictly speaking, it's their message, so why not say it's from them? Just make sure it's their private e-mail address, because if it's their company e-mail address and you've got to look after the servers, well ...
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Well, there's 2 kinds of spam:
Spoiled spam (the kind that went past the expiry date): the usual porn and 900 number spam. Doesn't taste good.
Eatable spam (everything else): The spam from legit companies, etc. Even though this is still annoying, it's not the kind we complain to the FDA about.
Either way they're not tasty. Complain to your local supermarket or the FDA as soon as you can
*sarcasm*
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
You forget one small thing... Ok, let's make it a high crime in the US to send spam to addresses on this list. So the spammers start sending mail from other countries... And they get a huge list of valid addresses to send to.
Even if you get half the world to pass these laws, what about the other half? Not to mention the countries where laws can be freely broken by anyone with enough money, and how much some countries dispise any attempt by the US to force laws on them...
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
what about .gov .edu .mil ...
Can't sleep, clowns will eat me....
Because it costs *them* money to send me junk mail. Also, you can normally get a legit address from junk mail, so if it bugs you enough you can at least have a reasonable chance at letting them know what a bunch of loosers they are. Also, as the article said, there are laws governing junk mail and explicit sexual material, but not spam.
Can't sleep, clowns will eat me....
I hope this qualifies as legitimate marketing methods, and not spam. It seems okay to me, but if there are bad aspects of it, we'd like to know.
We generally collect email adresses from trade shows. Whenever someone wants a demo program, we ask for their email address so we can send them product announcements (if they don't want to give it to us, we give them the demo anyway [a lot of government institutions don't allow their employees to give out email addresses]). If they're tired of getting announcements, they send us an email requesting such (instructions are included in the announcements).
I think this is acceptable. We don't collect addresses without permission, and we remove addresses upon request. We do it this way because we hate spam too.
Any thoughts on improving our methods?
Okay I'm ignorant. Why is toner such a popular spam/scam product? I get phone solicitations for this all the time, and it usually sounds blatantly "boiler room". I've nevered ordered toner before (that's someone else's job).
__________
An example of pull media would be more like.. well.. the web.. or a kiosk where you can buy magazines (though the rack-space is limited, but less so than radiofrequencies.. I mean, the internet is limited to, even if just by the IPv4 adress range.. for now.. ;-)
--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as "legitimate spam".
Spam is unsolicited e-mail - if I ask for it, it is not Spam, it is plain old legitimate email communication - just that it comes from a company who wants to tell me something (which I have directly told them that I want to hear...).
The very word "legitimate spam" is frightening -- it has the same ring to me as "Freindly Fascism" or "Good Child Molestation"
adrien cater
boring.ch
Point and Grunt
Reputable businesses realize that they live by satisfying their customers. If I get a mail from Sun (which I have) and I kindly ask them to remove me from their list (which I did), and they do, I'm happy.
When I get a spam with forged headers through stolen relay services that refer to encoded URL's (escaped characters or single digit IP's), it's clear to me that the sender knows that what they are doing is WRONG! If not, why hide?
I always complain to the postmaster of the originating site, as well as any mentioned web-sites, as concisely and breifly as I can in the hopes that they get shut down and have to move again. In most these cases, this is clearly theft of service. Affected ISP's as well as customers should unite to sue these idiots out of business.
That will set the tone for responsible commercial email. No reputable company would send anything that someone didn't request.
If they have a 800 number in the spam ...
I set my fax software to dial the number number
10 times. If everyone did this
http://Lenny.com
In other words, as long as you get to use their service, they believe they have every right to spam you to oblivion.
Which is why I think everyone should (or I think most people already do) have a hotmail or yahoo account that is used only for services that require a e-mail registration, so it doesn't clutter up my regular account.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789
that's 36 right there - what's the problem?
best tool is gnutella and calling the file you want to get distributed teenfuckxxx.mov or pamela_tommy.mov. guaranteed to end up in everyone's harddrive
check out tribute to rodney mullen at http://www.ipbroadcast.com/rmullen.mov
Pork is not a verb
Your school sending you information isn't spam. They already have your dollar, they're not trying to get you to buy anything. They are trying to send you (from your description) useful and necessary information. There is a difference between unsolicited email and unsolicited commercial email.
I realize you probably realize this, given how you put spam in quotes's.
It's amusing to hear US netizens complain about the spam cost, when some of us end up paying per second to download this crap.
I get spam in 3 ways,
It's all bloody annoying, it all costs me, and worst of all, 99% of it is US centric. If there was a way to call US 800 numbers from the UK I'd use it to let them know exactly what I think, but instead I'm reduced to tracing it back when I can (Work uses Notes, which strips all the headers).
It is an annoyance, but pressing the delete key isn't enough, it still costs me and my ISP and the ISP it was sent through. Until ISPs themselves see the cost it's not going to stop.
Actually if a college provides the email address and necessary supporting infrastructure it seems to me that it is their right to make it clear up front that you will receive informational mailings of an official nature. I don't think that universities should support random activist groups to interfer with the legit usage of an individuals email.
You know when I got my first email account you didn't receive spam. None. Zero. Nor did people spam newsgroups. It was an overt policy that you didn't post commercial spam to usenet because most links were paid for by your competitors. It's not overly naive to not expect spam.
Last week AT&T called me asking if I wanted to talk about why I switched to another long distance carrier. I didn't, and told them not to call again. The next night, again at 7pm, they called me again - same question. I told them not to call again. The third night, you guessed it... The fourth night I don't know, I was out and they didn't leave a message.
You know what? It's a Federal law that if you ask not to be called and they call back you get $500 per recurrance. You might have to sue in small claims court but you will win.
1 - Say it costs me .10 cents per month. Say it's only .1 cent per month. It doesn't matter. Nobody has the right to force me to defray their cost of doing business. Should I be able to break the windows in your car so I can put a flier in your drivers seat?
2 - When you look at their expenses, say $100. And then you look at home much the real cost of their spam is, say $10,000. They are getting free value. Right around $9,900 worth of free value. It is absolutely the spammers obligation to pay this, not mine.
3 - I have no idea what the hell you said there. Conventional snail mail porn advertisements cannot be sent to unverified addresses. If you subscribe to playboy, for example, this is considered verification since you can't subscribe without indicating that you are over 18. Thus they can then send you porn snail mail. It is the law in the US (or at least a large enough portion of the US to make no difference) that companies cannot send porn to random addresses. The rest of your point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Just to explain a little more though, if you were to send a flier for your nude carwash with a bevy a naked women on it to the population of my home town you will go to jail for it. Even if you lived in a different state.
4 - Actually there are plenty of commercial spammers who make it extremely difficult and expensive for an individual to track down a responsible party. Merely knowing that you got an ad for 1-413-555-5555 does you no good whatsoever. In there are certain countries around the US where it doesn't take an international prefix to call and yet they are not regulated by the US FCC. There several businesses that will be happy to charge you $10.95/min to call their non-900 number. Because of the expense of tracking these things down, it's often stupid for you to do so. You either lose a little or a lot, take your pick.
5 - So, because you can sit out there and say "look, see how unlawful and disrespectful it is in town X" you think that's how everything should be? Are you just stupid or what? Do you really see it as legitimate behavior to do something of minimal expense and offense if you can get away with it? Jesus christ you must be a real asshole.
Actually within any parameters they are allowed to send it. But the fact that no rule of law exists that prevents it doesn't mean it's right. There will come a time when it will be illegal to send spam. Look at the other intrusive marketing industries. No telemarketing to cell phones. No telemarketing to fax machines. Why do you think that is? Because it costs the receipient money. Same way that email spam will eventually be outlawed. Either that or the law makers will start getting so much spam that email will not be an available tool for them.
1 - For each piece of spam received my ISP has to store it until I get around to reading or deleting it. My ISP knows that people get spammed and therefore have to expand their capabilities to handle the legit email. It costs them money and no struggling ISP is willing to eat it when they can pass that cost onto the customers. Spam "support" (if you want to call it that) directly translates into expenses for me.
2 - Blah. Right. You can buy software that will spam X number of people for a very small fee. Hell for $30 you can get a newgroup harvester and for another $30 you can get a spam sender. That's pretty minimal when you consider the overall expense paid by the receivers.
3 - It is absolutely illegal in the US for a company to send porn to an addressee without knowing in advance that the recepient is over 18 via snail mail.
4 - This is not whether some loser like yourself can send anonymous mail. Show me one company that sends bulk rated mail that can't be identified. Just one.
5 - Why is it a poorly configured server that allows spam? We shouldn't have to configure out systems to keep out the unwanted abuse of our systems, no more than a person should have to hire bodyguards and live in an armed citadel to protect their person. Spammers are the lowest form of life on the internet. Hell even AOLers are higher on the evolutionary scale.
Spam is not a first ammendmant issue in any country. The first ammendmant of the US constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard only to speak. I am not required to listen to what every freak on the street has to say.
More info on the late, not-so-great Murkowski bill can be found at Southwestern Bell's page about it. The "original Senate bill" link seems to be kaput, but you can still read the following:
s1618.es.txt
s1618.is.txt
s1618.rfh.txt
s1618.rs.txt
and is still theft of services that I pay for.
I wont have it
that is all
RickB
Rick B.
- It costs ME money. I PAY for my net connection. My snail mailbox is free. Junk that goes in there I didn't pay for. The company sending it did. Spam is like mail coming postage due. Imagine getting a flyer from your local grocery store and being REQUIRED to pay $0.50 to receive it. Spam is like that. You don't even get the choice to deny it. You are FORCED to pay for it
Also postal "spam" often comes with reply paid envelopes (or a freepost address) thus you can tell them to get lost at their expense. (Or even as one person I know does send them each other's stuff.)
The free aspect of it means that anyone can send it to everyone. Think about it -- I get at least two or three ads in my snail mailbox a day that are for local stores.
Including sending it to people who couldn't buy whatever it is even if they wanted it to. If these "local stores" used spam techniques they'd happily send their promotions to Antartica.
They've found so many obscure address formats that convince sendmail to relay that they've changed the definition of "poorly configured". Some of 'em are probably clever enough to qualify as hackers; it's just a pity they're also sociopaths.
At least part of the problem is down to mail software which requires a relay to work at all. (Apparently doing MX lookups is just too difficult for some software writers.) Thus ISP's feel obliged to provide relays. In the case of subscription free ISPs (or those who offer "trial accounts" without first verifying the identity of their customers) they may as well be providing open relays.
I not only built the bomb, I dropped it as well. I must hang my head in shame and admit that if you've ever registered at a Disney site (or now, at a GO.com site) and then recieved spam at that address, that I'm the person you might want to spend a little hate on.
I dind't write the copy or approve the mailings. I wasn't a marketeer. I wrote the software and executed it. Eventually I got tired of marketing constantly asking me to send out their stupid mailings and gave them an interface to do it on their own, or as I liked to refer to it, enough rope to hang themselves.
When I started working at Disney they used a bit of perl code in conjuction with a copy of sendmail running on an old Sparc. I wrote new software that was multi-threaded, customizable and damn efficient. I'll admit that there's a little bit of pride there. To be sure I always tried to encourage such ideas as an easy unsubscribe link built directly into the e-mail, but marketing never seemd to wrap their heads around the idea that someone might not want to recieve e-mail from Disney.
A word of caution, a lot of companies are playing dirty these days. See, HTML mail is becoming more popular, especially from 'respectable' companies who want to maintain that polished image. And HTML can benefit a company in more ways that just providing a slick look. TYake a look at the source of any HTML mail you read. Just by opening it, you might have told the company that a) you have a valid e-mail address, b) you open the mail, or at least saw it briefly, and c) that you have an HTML capable mail reader. See, the sender can encode the HTML so that there's an image, probably just a 1x1 transparent gif, that has a bunch of codes in the URL, codes that can identify which e-mail address a particular message is associated with. If you open the mail and your client asks their server for the image, you've just bared your soul to them. Its insidious. It should probably be illegal.
Jherico
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
Spammers lie.
No, there is no such law. Spammers quote S. 1618, which died in committee something like two years ago without becoming law.
Chris Johnson says he's afraid to send single, personalized emails to specific people in the music industry to help promote his work.
A single message to a specific person isn't spam. It may be unsolicited, but it's not bulk, and bulk is what makes spam intolerable.
Without the "bulk" part of "unsolicted bulk email," nobody would give spam a second thought.
Chris, if you use email like a personal phone call, I don't think anyone could rightly accuse you of network abuse.
Spam is free speach, and if your goverment blocks that, it must also means that they have to right to block other "offesive things" that you may hold valuable or like.
No, a hit rate of 1 in 100,000 or lower is probably more like it for spam.
.uk TLD email addresses, which would be trivial to filter for.
The reason that (paper) junk mail and phone calls have higher hit rates is the unit cost - junk mail lists are prequalified because it's worth spending 40c per name to eliminate a no hopers from the list if the mail piece costs 60c a unit with postage. Telemarketing costs $3 a call, ditto.
In contrast, it only costs $20 or so to send out a million copies of a spam, so there isn't the same incentive to filter the list. I even get US-only spam regularly delivered to my
Commercial spammers used to rely on the thesis that "even if you only get a 0.0001% success rate, thats $xxx00000 in your pocket" to market their services but enough of their customers have been burned. The professional marketing industry is now waking up to the fact that with an unfiltered list you really can send a million copies of a spam and get ZERO sales and a ton of abuse hurled back.
The negative response of the public is all that is holding back the flood right now; the ultimate way to control it would be price rather than legislation - make emails cost a tenth of a cent each, and it would be enough to severely curtail spam without pricing real communication out of the market. This would be a retrograde step for the technology however, and I would only advocate it as a last resort.
A few emails are better than tripe in the snailmail, imo. The last occupant of my apartment subscribed to around 7 catalogs and it took two shades of forever to get off the lists...
ill
Actually, as today's Wired story notes, political spam is alive and well.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
This is because of the Data Protection Acts of 1984 and 1999. Businesses are obliged to seek explicit permission before storing and using *any* identifying information. They also have register with the Data Protection Commission with a fairly exact list of what data they're allowed to collect, where they're allowed to get it from and to what purposes they're allowed to put it.
Further, data subjects (that's you and me) have a right to the data stored about them for a 'reasonable fee' (ie around a tenner), and revoke permissions to data they have provided. It's not only commercial data users who are under obligation to go through this, but also health bodies, the police and so on. And the commission is a body with some teeth, as the kicking it handed out to the government over its privacy bill shows.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Unfortunately, there are also, however, a significant number of legitimate companies that do this kind of thing. (A good example is my credit card company.) I much prefer spam to telemarketers. Actually, the best way to handle telemarketers is not to vent and hang up, it's to keep them on the line as long as possible without buying anything. In this case, you may cost them a sale or two, which is far more important to them than some creative obscenities. Of course, I susapect most people (like my Dad) who take the "creative obscenity" approach really just feel like venting and harming the immediate cause of their discomfort, rather than harming the business itself.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
"They" allow you to register anything, nowadays. Domains used to have to start with a letter. Witness "3com.com".
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
You have no idea how much transfer spam takes up, do you? how much of an ISP's bandwidth is wasted on the same data being sent again and again to all the different e-mail addresses on their server, do you?
Go ask someone who works for an ISP what they think about spam.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
High probably does not mean certainty, true. But you said in your original message that chances are any given message will NOT be touched by sendmail, which is what I was calling you on.
You are partially correct. Although mail is sent end-to-end, there is still a very high probablility that either your ISP or the recipient's ISP uses sendmail.
As for me, I know that all my incoming and outgoing mail uses sendmail, because that's what fetchmail and pine talk to.
The commercial spam baffles me, though: companies just don't seem to get it. The more junk mail a company like CD-NOW sends me, the less likely I am ever going to buy from them again.
Oh really! Does that also apply to television, radio and print spam? So you mean you'll quit drinking or eating all the food products that are being advertised! Good luck buddy!
It's not so easy.
> Opt-out
opt-out...
Please reply to this email with "REMOVE" in the subject
...and kindly verify this email address for us so that we can ignore your request and send even more SPAM.
And even if it did work, why should anyone have to take any action to prevent spam? What if I have kids (I don't), and I don't want them receiving "HOT BACKDOOR SLUTZ!!!" emails?
(hehehe.. how long before "HOT GRITS delivered TO YOUR DOOR!" spam appears?)
> complain to the uplink
I'm not sure if you mean "mail server" or "ISP" by that. But, surprise, surprise, most SPAM is anonymous, and comes without valid headers showing who sent it. It sneaks in through open SMTP servers.
> Set up a junk account.
But then to see your order status or any other mail you still need to visit the junk account.
More laws would NOT be a mistake. There will be laws. Getting the RIGHT laws, based on an opt-in rather than an opt-out policy is very important. The spammers and the direct mailers want opt-out - in other words, for your email inbox to look just like your mailbox. You want to be able to take legal action, but you don't want laws?
Last week AT&T called me asking if I wanted to talk about why I switched to another long distance carrier. I didn't, and told them not to call again. The next night, again at 7pm, they called me again - same question. I told them not to call again. The third night, you guessed it... The fourth night I don't know, I was out and they didn't leave a message.
As for legal action, I'm not interested. I don't want to go near any slimy lawyers.
http://www.junkbusters.com is a good site devoted to fighting spam and telemarketing.
Please don't take this as a flame in any way, I just don't think you've really tried the solutions you propose. LCDproc looks pretty damn cool, BTW.
So, the company uses SPAM to advertise and can't spell their own URL.
I hope you're looking forward to your professionally run, reliable, shared T1. Please let us know how it turns out.
Mwahahahaha!
Apparently it doesn't cost them enough money. I have set up an account with hotmail that I use when I have to register a login on a web page (usually warez) that demands an e-mail address. I check it periodically, this thread reminded me to check it....234 messages since April 7. I go through all of the subjects to determine if there are any that look like they might be legit messages...of course there are those that have "me again" in the subject, or "hi there"....I feel obligated to check them just in case. None of them ever are legit.
- ------
I have added all of these e-mail addresses to my "bulk mail" (read: junk mail repository) and found that none of them are repeat offenders. So instead of replying to each of them and saying "stop spamming me" I just leave it in my hotmail account (see, Microsoft IS good for something)
-------------------------------------
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
I used to be polite to phone-spammers (a.k.a. telemarketers). I'd say "No thank you" and wait for them to hang up. Now I just hang up as soon a I figure out it's a telemarketer. I don't have any obligation to be polite to them (though I'd agree that chewing them out is not productive).
/important/ that's not so bad, but having to deal with someone calling just to harass me out of my money is absurd.
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that unsolicited advertisements are nothing less than a form of harassment. After all, they've sent me something I don't want/called me when I didn't want to be called, and pressured me to buy something I don't want. The telemarketers are particularly bad, since a phone call interrupts you from what you're doing, and you have to take time out to deal with the harasser.
I mean, if I'm interrupted by a call that's actually
I'm against advertising. It seems to make people stupider. I wonder if spam was one the meantioned via another /. articlel... hmm.
Well, i personaly don't like being bothered. I make it a point to not buy anything i hear about b/c someon called me, emailed me, or junk mailed me.
I yell anytime anyone bothers me with crap never asked to hear about. Thats why junk mail gets a DELIVERY REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER, phone callers get chewed out, and spammers get blackholed. About the phone callers getting chewed out; someone said to be polite, b/c then they won't have a reason to hang up on you. My question is, if they were rude enough to call me in the first place, i think i have the right to be a complete ass to them, no? Just a thought.
We shouldn't have to configure out systems to keep out the unwanted abuse of our systems
Thats like saying you shouldn't have to lock your car. I guess it just depends on how secure you want things. Like it or not, people will take advanage, steal, even sometimes kill if they can. You're always gonnahave these people, you just have to decide how much of a defense you want to protect yourself with. Just like if you leave your car unlocked in NYC and it gets stolen, your insurance company will probably place some of the blame on you as well.
Well why not flip out about it? I didn't care what those fliers my college was handing out said anyway, why should i suddenly think its ok now that their using my email to send me the same crap i couldn't give a fuck about?
They are trying to send you (from your description) useful and necessary
information.
I have never once, ever in my 4 years at college recieved anything useful and nessasery via my schools spam list. If there's anything really important my school wants to tell me, they put it in a nice envelope with thier return address and mail it to me. Even the stuff they shove in my departmental mailbox is usually crap...
Well i think there is enough evidence in looking around for everyone to figure out you can't trust anyone. No it doesn't make it less of a crime, but it does mean its partily you're fault. Besides, if someone is stealing your car, do you think they'd have a moral problem that they were also taking advanage of someone's weakness? Probalby not..
No matter how good the product, how unobtrusive it is, how polite they are, they are still filling up my mailbox with ads.
Now, I get a lot of ads in email from companies where I have explicitly giving them permission to send me such, often in exchange for something nice like an informative newsletter, or a CD with something of value. My time is valuable, and I don't give it away for nothing. Hmmm... I do however waste it posting on /., so I'm not entirely consistent here.
The difference is that I've asked them to send me ads, it's not UNSOLICITED email. Spam = UCE => Unsolicited Computer Email. In these days of banner ads, there is hardly any argument that a company NEEDS Spam to get my attention.
I always always always junk all Spam (and much of the solicited ad email). If you ever give into the urge and do check out the Spammer's offerrings further, you are just encouraging them (as a class, both "legitimate" and otherwise) to fill up your mailbox with garbage. If everyone deleted all Spam there wouldn't be a Spam problem and we wouldn't need legislation or filters.
-Jordan Henderson
--
The shareholder is always right.
The thing I find amusing is that until they added this feature, I didn't get any. My immediate thought was "what did they do? give out my email and 'correct' it by adding the bulk mail folder?!" I'm still not sure...
ufdraco
I am not required to listen to what every freak on the street has to say.
And you don't have to read spam, either. But within reasonable parameters, companies are allowed to send it to you.
"I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way." -Robert Frost
is that in the business world, we vote with our dollars.
... if they'd offered me an insane deal on a really cool product, I'd at least consider it.
If Sony did decide to send out spam, they could probably spam a hundred thousand or so people people for a nominal cost (the benefit of spam). Provided that they don't rely exclusively on spam to generate business, your "dollar vote" means nothing to them.
Also, they'd stand a better chance of getting away with it. I doubt the spam cops would really want to squabble with a multibillion dollar corp. over a first ammendment issue.
As for people who would otherwise buy Sony products, but don't after receiving spam -- I'm sure that their numbers pale when compared to those who actually do take the bait. I mean, hey
* 3 (.net, .com, .org) = 108
One possible solution to this would be to refuse any unencrypted E-Mail, and set your encryption key to about 4096 bits. It takes about 10 seconds on my PII 300 at work to encrypt an e-mail sized
This is certainly a viable solution, but there are easier, less drastic ways of managing your spam level. Once such method is to use a whitelist and a blacklist such as the method described in this perl.com article.
I personally don't use a whitelist/blacklist method, relying instead on the RBL and some anti-spam filters I've acquired. But, if my spam levels get above a certain point, say 2 or 3 p/day*, then I'll hack something up using procmail to implement this.
Cheers!
* - Yes, I realize that to some a mere 2-3 articles of spam per day must seem like sheer heaven to people who have to deal with 5+ p/day. I count myself very lucky my spam level is still maintainable.
Spam: Bulk email from a stranger. Solved mostly with technology and a little bit by laws. By emphasizing method (bulk), not content, we can use technology to block spam, and courts are likely to uphold our rights to do so. Blocks or bans on content (1), non-bulk email (2), or email from a pre-existing business relationship (3) are likely to fail and could make the problem much worse.
Non-bulk email, or email from entities who aren't strangers: not spam, however annoying. Generally solved with boycotts, public ridicule, and questions about ethics "Would you accept 'technically I didn't lie' from an employee? Then why should we the public accept it?" (As for 'friendly' email, replies of "By forwarding this email to me you give me permission to think you're an idiot. There is no virus. Timmy hates postcards. You can't send angelic blessings as an attachment, and if I wanted that joke I'd go to rec.humor.funny-the-1st-time-20-repetitions-ago.")
Laws: Even on spam not a good idea- ineffective at best. Dishonest spam & spammers (forged headers, etc.) don't care about existing US laws- they break laws on contracts ('no spamming' ISP contracts), theft (stolen credit cards to pay for accounts), identity fraud, spam (California requires "ADV," in the subject line...), and more already. And domestic laws can't stop a fundamentally international problem. Even worse, if US laws only ban dishonest spam then honest (think DMA) spam is legitimized. And banning commercial speech won't make it because of the Constitution, which protects commercial speech much more than some people might think. Thus, bad idea to focus on...
(1) Content: Political or religious messages can still be spam, and any speech, commercial or not, has to be really, really bad before the Supreme Court will even start to think about unprotecting it. You'd have to prove Spam-speech is equivalent to "'fire!' in a crowded theater" or "riot right now" speech. Unlikely. Instead, focus on...
(2) "Bulk" because bulk is what causes damages. One bounced email: no problem. 100,000: big problem. Courts are likely to find that individually written emails, however annoying, aren't going to cause the damages of bulk - people just can't write that many in a day. Courts won't like punishing a person who wrote one letter ("Hi, I saw an article about you, you might be interested in my software..." is an unsolicited commercial email. Laws that ban it won't last very long.). "Bulk" makes a better brightline. If a spammer is caught breaking an ISP's contract, and claims the emails weren't bulk, easy perjury... Judge: "4 emails with boilerplate text after the first sentence. This isn't bulk?" Exceptionally stupid Spammer: "No." And also focus on
(3) "From a stranger" for two reasons. One- its easier to prove that bulk email from strangers is inherently a burden. Email from all 200 businesses you do know: irritating but not impossible to deal with, maybe not worth curbing speech. Email from some of the 29.9998 million businesses you don't know (opt-outable or not): bad. Two- if you voluntarily gave your email address out, courts might rule that caveat emptor trumps "punish them because their email annoys me."
My dad gets telecom spam. Some of it is from legit companies like GTC offering very good rates. He will respond to those, because they offer him something he wants. There are probably other people out there who look forward to porn spam so they can mooch a few more free pics.
Spam exists because the risk-to-reward is very low. Email costs nothing. One reply in a thousand, or even in a hundred thousand, and you've got significant profit.
You have 45 minutes to spend just to annoy a spammer and cost him money?
I hope the server falls on you the next time you walk past it.
Seriously, though, the whole problem with spam is that it wastes my resources. If I spend any nontrivial time (where "trivial" is defined as the time to SpamCop it) on spam, it only aggravates the problem. Your solution works, but I think it's unfeasible in practice.
How is Caldera any more legit than Babylon X? They are both just a bunch of geeks trying to make money from their computing skills. Unwanted email is unwanted email, regardless of the source.
I don't see any company as less legitimate than any other, (with the exception of scam companies that are just there to bilk investors out of millions and go under) and the same goes for spam. People who work with porn work just as hard to make a buck as the people who work with Linux.
U CAN NEVER STOP SPAM BCUZ IT IS SO EAZY!!!! A FRIEND OF MINE AND I WROTE A PROGRMA IN QBASIC THAT SENDS SPAM FROM OUTLOOK EXPRESS TO LIKE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. IT RUNS REALLY FAST BECAUSE QBASIC IS NATIVE TO WINDOWS. LINSUX AND OS2 AND BSD AND OTHER SHIT AREN'T FAST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE NATIVE SHIT LIKE QBASIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't be afraid to spam if it's personal email. Often times a 'one time' unsolicited email will get passed over, but if it's followed up with another saying "I'm following up to an un answered email from a week ago", it'll get attention.
I also tend to respond better to people who put full disclosure about who they are (full name, address, homepage link) and how I can reach them (phone number,fax,cell)in the email. A lot of people are more comfortable picking up a phone to talk then to type a response.
Lastley, striking up an on-line 2 way comunication is very simalar to personal relationships. The first contact is often just a "get to know me" kinda thing. Then, after a few messages have been echanged with success, the comunications can move forward. Think of your first email to execs as the "get to know me" part and don't be put off if they don't take the time right away. If I was a music exec, I would respect your fire and desire if you kept up the messages. Don't be afraid to email them more often, just keep them personal.
___
Al Gore has been sending me email (through his "Southern Californians for Gore" list) for the past 6 months, despite following the unsubscribe directions five times. I don't even know how I got on the list. And yes, they do boil down to "Vote for me". The father of the internet doesn't have much respect for it.
I always get a chuckle though of people's silly javascript mail syntax checkers... I've never seen one that will reject a domain of only one character followed by a .net, .org, etc. That's my way of avoiding email I don't want.
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
I can't stand SPAM myself. I'm the first to admit that spam is a problem, but I question the request for legislation to prevent it. Regulation of internet email is a first step off the deep end to serious problems, even if you just think you're focusing on spam. We are a group of individuals that are vehemently against regulation of the internet. Even though in this case, regulation might seem positive, it could have some serious side-affects as well just depending on how the law is written.
You should do the same favor for your marketing that those "helpful" slashdot readers did for Taco. Simply put in their business email addresses to a few of those "password" sites that the mp3 sites make you go to, and a few months down the road they might not be arguing too much with you.
:-)
In fact, I bet if you asked the good Cmdr, he might be able to tell you some of the mo-betta ones to put them on
My college does the email-based thing, and I have long since filtered the emails to a rarely-checked mailbox. The college also has lists for all women and all faculty/staff in addition to the whole student body.
The real problem with the all-student list is that people with access to it use it for notices that really aren't of interest to the entire student body. A fairly good article on the subject is here. Although specific to my campus, it has a general argument on how useful emails are obscured by the amount of garbage.
I don't think the kind of information to which you refer is spam, but the kinds of things that our all-student list send out are. You refer to information that does not involve any solicitation -- the all-student list, however, is used by faculty to solicit students to sign up for certain classes or performances or to attend shows and lectures. I am not against the all-student list for what is now, but I see what it's becoming, and it is becoming school-sanctioned spam.
I know a number of people who are, or have been, telemarketers; apparently making one sale out of a hundred calls is good-to-average. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to say that one out of every hundred spam mails that's attended to
But the beauty of spam is that it costs as much for the spammer to send out a 1000 emails as it does to send out 1 email.
====
I deal with about 10 spams a day at my mowrk email address. A simple mail to webmaster@whereever.com seems to end the problem quickly. The last time we had a serious spam problem in our company is when someone broke into our mail server and was sending spam through our system. It took our Notes Admin about 5 hours, but he tracked it, called the company with the IP address the problem came from, which was in Canada, and dealt with their system admins. The problem stopped immediately. The employee that hacked our system was terminated, and arrested Hooray for the good guys.
heh.
after my university (of about 8000 students) sent me an email about someone's car lights being on i filterred them to their own special email box.
i don't read their paper spam either so not a lot changed...
-Reeves
Returning snail mail doesn't inconvenience them. They just throw it away. It inconveniences the postal service of whatever country you live in. It's a lousy thing to do, and you ought not to do it. On the other hand, dropping their "Business Reply Mail" envelopes in the box affects the company directly, as they're paying the return postage. The postal service gets paid, so they don't mind.
Hotmail's is a whole lot better than Yahoo's. Unless your name is specified in the To field it redirects it to a spam folder. In the past month I have only had 3 spammers slip through. On the flip side it thought a few emails from a company I interviewed with were spam since their response was mass mailed, it also seems to not like emails I send from a *nix command line like so
mail carnage4life@hotmail.com textfile
. Yahoo mail lets in spam daily, admittedly it isn't as much spam as before but I still get spam daily as opposed to hotmail which is once a week or so.
Do idiots follow me around or something? I tell ya.
-- Bandit450...If-Else-Do-*TWITCH*!
I don't care where the spam is comming from, I don't want it! I get about 15-20 spams a day and it's driven me to abandon e-mail. My friends and I have a contest even to see who can accumulate the most spam per day!
It's like opening your mailbox (real mailbox) and finding nothing but flyers, unwanted magazines, catalogues and chain letters. The day that spam becomes outlawed worldwide, and it all stops is the day I will be most happy.
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back to your mail client"
-- Bandit450...If-Else-Do-*TWITCH*!
Theres no such thing in my opinion as legitmate buisness spam. AT&T spammed me so I switched to MCI. Its that simple. Zero tolerance. However several spammers as of late have bulk prioritity'd there mail to me. Wether by design or the fact that they havent got a clue how to configure majordomo I dont know but im greatfull for the simple filter rule which stomps 50% of my spam.
I hope I am not getting into this discussion too late for anyone with info to read this, but I think one of the main points of the Salon article is that the Spam doesn't do any good for the companies who post it. Since it is so hard to reply to their mailings anyway. Since a company has to buy a list of emails (and then maintain it), as well as time on a server sending out emails, it seems that even though it is much cheaper than traditional advertising methods, it is not free. However, since it seems to do so little, why bother doing it?
I would really like to see some real research done by those business school types. Actually, maybe we could do it as geeks...ie send out some test spam and see how many hits we get on our test site. I am guessing in significant figures, it will be 0.
I have done websearchers for real data on the efficacy of email advertising, targeted and otherwise, but I haven't been able to turn anything up.
One last thing is the difference between smail junk and spam, is that you can be reasonably sure that there is really a store somewhere offering you whatever is for sale; that is most often not the case, as is described in the Salon article. So even if you were interested in whatever pr0n or whatever was being shilled, you couldn't buy it anyway.
"Politics is for the moment, an equation lasts eternity" -A. Einstein
I don't like new laws passed. At all. Each one chips at one of our freedoms. Surely there is an easier solution.
Well, there is, its dollar votes. We shouldn't purchase from companies that send us mail. We should write them back or even call them telling them explicity that we will not purchase from them again and that we are displeased at their form of marketing.
One of the biggest offenders I can think of is EBWorld.com I bought the X-Files computer game for mom for her birthday (a really cool game for those interested) and I got put on a mailing list. I had to provide a real e-mail address because that is how receipts and mailing information is delievered. There was no opt-out button and yet I recieve nearly a piece of junk mail from A DAY!!! Yes, one a day! So I followed their instructions to get off their list. I got an error. I tried for a 15 mins. to get off their list. I like to consider myself computer savvy. I've recompiled my own kernals and know several languages yet I could just not get off their list! So I finally sent a compliant to their feedback address telling how displeased I was and that I would no longer purchase anything from them again. No reply! And I still get the mail! I will be sending them the Junkbuster SPAM reply by certified mail next. If they don't stop I'll start collecting.
But the end message is you must put your foot down and put it down hard. Tell your friends when you see them recieve SPAM. Remember, only you can prevent SPAMmers from getting buisness.
Open Source, Open Standards, Open Minds
In several cases I have gotten indignant replies saying that they would never, ever spam and how could I possibly be so confused. It sometimes takes me three or four exchanges before I make them understand that UCE=spam (or I just get tired and quit trying).
If more companies realized that their "targetted marketing" is really spam and it's alienating the very consumers it's trying to reach, they'd stop.
The key is to have a very long memory (or a vindictive streak) so you can remember and punish long after the first incident.
micco
YEs you're right, but it should filter duplicates (6, 7, or sometimes as much as 1000 copies of the same mail come). It can easily check for 1-to-1 duplicates and tell you that there are 999 copies of the message (just like gdb).
You guys having filters at home are just fine. But what about ones like me who has 400 e-mails in his inbox and have to get them throuh http. I think we shall make sendmail change and include filters for default.... (eg: ./ effect). (Someone told me that EVERY PIECE OF E-MAIL is touched by sendmail at least once)
All this talk of SPAM is making me hungry.
He gave them his bloody email address for cripesake. It's not spam if you give them your email address. He is the one who's reasoning that his email address should only be used to send him 'emergency' messages. Did the company claim that they wouldn't send him online advertising? Not bloody likely.
And even if they did, big fucking deal. This guy's a cry baby whiner. Either that or a Salon columnist.
Death to legitimate spammers!
:wq
And there's no real cost (other than my own equipment and a $6-ish renewal fee every 10 years) for my ham radio license. Difference? My license FORBIDS me (or any other ham) from using the radio for commercial purposes. Therefore, about 99% of what I hear has some level of relevance to me.
Since email does NOT have a similar prohibition, anyone who collects my email address in a list (one of them is @arrl.net) can flood my inbox, and millions of others, with useless crap I have no desire to read, waste filesystem space on, or respond to. The more that happens, the less useful email becomes, until it degrades to a recipient-supported advertisement distribution system and personal emails are lost in the earsplitting din of competing high power commercial sites. It will go that way, believe me -- people want money and believe they'll get it if they can just make you see their name that 100,001st time.
Hate to break it to you, but there are even spammer-friendly SMTP servers out there, specifically designed to work with high-speed bulk emailing software. This is a business, folks, and it will keep growing until someone throws a wrench in the works, or until nobody reads email anymore. Trace your spam. Complain to the hosting site, the hosting network, and/or the backbone if need be, but let these people know they're not welcome, NOW, before they get even more out of control
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
Of course the list of adresses to which one may not send porn spam becomes a rich trove for spam Bible sellers and Republican SpamCandidates.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
That statement also strikes me as being a bit disingenuous, but only to a point. He is trying to make the point that there is nothing natural, and probably something unethical, about treating every e-mail address one receives as a simple commodity.
He is making the point that he engaged in specific transactions with specific companies -- he registered his copy of OpenLinux, and registered his Sony VAIO. And then, without notification, his address was used for purposes outside the realm of these specific transactions.
I think that legislation might not be necessary, at least in the case of well-established companies. Sony generally doesn't send out junk mail, or use telemarketers, so once they figure out that spam e-mail is just as annoying to its customers, it will find more effective means of using network technologies to enhance customer relationships, and drive new sales. Or, more likely, the other way around--companies will figure out better methods, and the crude mass-mailing will be a thing of the past.
I also have to wonder how angry Mr. Garfinkle would have been regarding the Caldera message if it read more like:
Instead of sending him some bs marketing hype.
There isn't much of one, except for the fact that one is commercial and the other isn't. If 500 people send you mail about "hot free sex" or about Taiwanese politics or something, does it annoy you any less than if the messages are "hot slutz want you! 1-900-FUCK-YOU" or "GET COLLEGE DEGREES FAST LIKE NOW"?
Spam is annoying and is theft of service. If I subscribe to linux-kernel, then I ask to receive the email. If I send mail to linux-kernel, then I expect emailed replies. (People who falsify their email addresses get their mail and news auto-killed at my site.) But I don't expect the Linux-kernel folks to just start flooding me with list traffic because I run Linux, or someone said that I might be interested, or they think that it's a great way to promote open source software.
Big business does do "targetted" direct marketting... why wouldn't they do it through e-mail as well? It only makes sense to the average marketting person. ;)
BlackNova Traders
---
guillaume
give me all your garmonbozia
Boost Your Sex Drive!
LibidoMagic!= (TM)
A Potent 100% al= l natural Herbal Aphrodisiac for men and women
Men and women, w= ho suffer from sexual dysfunction's
such as lack of desire, impotency, orgasmic function and lack of fertili= ty,
have for a long time been at the mercy of giant pharmaceutical companies=
These companies, through their vast advertising budgets, convinced us that their chemically produced remedies=
HOWEVER=
subject to the con= dition of the individual, that can Revitalize
and Rejuvenate the system through Natural Means!=
If All is Normal= , LibidoMagic will Enhance your Sexual Experiences!
LibidoMagic! is a 100% natural blend= of herbs which causes no side effects,
it rejuvenates and= enhances,the sexual performance of Men and Women.
Increase Your Desire , Experience all Natural Sexual Ecstasy
add more Romance and Passion into your life.
FIRM, POWERFUL, LONG = LASTING ERECTIONS! CREDIT CARD ORDERS CALL 954-974-9903 LibidoMagic is on SALE 4/21 THRU 4/27
$39.99 Per Bott= le of Sixty Capsules +$7.00 S/H
A Savings of $10.00 p= er bottle!!
Distributors Welcome!!
To Order By Mail See End of Message=
To Fax Orders Only = That Number is
310-358-7317
It will help Women = to have,
FASTER AROUSAL! STRO= NGER & DEEPER FULFILLMENT!
STIMULATING SENSATIONS !
LibidoMagic is formulated to enhance your sexual experi= ence naturally.
The active ingredient in LibidoMagic = has been proven
to be a natural sexual enhancer.
Increase in energy and well being, relief of many PMS
and menopausal symptoms in women,strength and endurance as well
as stamina, which is why multiple orgasms will be experienced. It helps to enhance sexual sensations, improves responsiveness and assertiveness.=
Order This Fabulous Product Today!
LibidoMagic out performs, and the price beats TV advertised competition!
ORDER NOW ! MONEY BACK GUARANTEE !
CREDIT CARD ORDERS
Call 954-974-9903
LibidoMagic!
LibidoMagic is on SALE 4/21 THRU 4/27
$39.99 Per Bott= le of Sixty Capsules +$7.00 S/H
To Fax an Order onl= y the number is 310-358-7317
No Credit Card? No Problem
Make Check or Money Order payable to VNR
and mail to:
VNR
P.O. BOX 590953
FT. LAUDERDALE
FL. 33359
We do wait until personal checks clear= our bank, before mailing your order
For Fax Orders, please print and fax the following to:
310-358-7317=
Name__________________________________= _______________
Address__________________________________________
City_______________________State_______Zip_______
Phone#__________________Email Address__________________
CreditCard____________________________MC/ V/ AmEx
Card Number___________________________________________
Expiration Date_______________
I wish to order_____Bottle(s)
you will receive a confirmation o= f your order
This e-mail message is being sent in = accordance with proposed
U.S. Federal regulations for commercial e-mail as well as the
Washington state commercial e-mail law.
To be removed from list click REMOVE
It doesn't matter if the cup is half full or half empty. Whatever's inside it is evaporating either way.
"Legitimate" companies have been spamming for quite a while - Real, Amazon, Ebay, ... search news.admin.net-abuse.email for "mainsleaze". It's a much bigger problem than Joe Chickenboner, because its these bastards that fund the DMA and other pro-spam, anti-consumer, anti-privacy lobby groups in Congress.
And personally I don't care who spams me... I'll treat every one of them the same no matter how big or small.
It just ain't right.
That's a big flip side though, wouldn't you say? Yahoo Mail has yet to incorrectly put a legit incoming email of mine into the spam folder.
---------------
---------------
JavaScript tutorials scripts
Here is a News.com piece on the new feature added to Yahoo Mail: "Yahoo adds spam filter to email, but will it work?"
---------------
---------------
JavaScript tutorials scripts
Sounds like CT has been sending a little time reasearching those 900 numbers himself. But what can you expect with a handle like 'CmdrTaco'...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Well, I have never gotten spam from Sony. But I did receive legitimate spam from Electronic Arts, advertising a bunch of Sony Playstation EA Sports games.
The worst thing is that they are spamming my address from a registration card I sent in for SimCity (not 3000, not 2000 either, it was from the naive days of the 16 color version that ran on Mac II machines - I've had the same address for that long). They have no idea if I even own a Playstation - the last machine they have in their database is a Mac LC. And not even an opt-out either.
So, after 20 years in this business, EA is nothing more than a bunch of sorry chickenboners. Feel free not to buy their products.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I get lots of legit spam. Most I've signed myself up for. I get notices about M$ product chats (don't ask, it pays), RealNetworks server announcements, etc. I don't mind the legit stuff. In fact, most of it has a "You are subscribed to blah, click here to unsubscribe" message. It's the real spam that bothers me. I go after spammers, even to the point of cancelling their internet connections. I'm vicious. I got some recently - somebody got my email address, and I eliminated them. Hah.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Visit
The thing that particularly pisses me off about the Spam I receive is that my ISP has me on a distribution list. All the customers of my ISP get the same spam every time it's sent out because the nameless ISP is selling its user list to the spammers! I have multiple e-mail logins and every one gets a copy of the spam.
And Hotmail does the same thing (one reason I refuse to use it). I signed up for a Hotmail account. By the time I managed to log in, I had a message in my Inbox about "Hot naked women!".
--
Todd's Law: All things being equal, you lose!
Legitimate Spam knows who it's daddy is.
//
seriously, it's not nearly as bad as illegitimate spam... where you don't know if the message is forged or what. At least with legitimate spam you can complain.
It amazes me how many people love spam... sending spam... getting spam. Really, I'm almost liable to think that spam isn't so bad... nah. It is.
--// Hartsock
Live to Code, Code to Live!
They spammed me $10 and $20 credits I took advantage of them getting like $10.73 and $21.50 worth of stuff so they lose big time - hehehe.
If you have a fast connection...reply to the spammer with a 5MB file, any file will do, but preferably something equally useless. Send it as an attachment. When it hits his/her drop box email which then forwards it to the spammer's real email, in most cases it will bounce back with a "filesize exceeds limit, break into smaller pieces and try resending" type error. It will also give you the "real" email address to reply to. Many times it will tell you what the limit is, for example 1.25 MB...I have a preset group of 1MB files that I forward back to the spammer in bundles of 10. Soon, I have to delete a few messages from my inbox stating: Returned for the following reason- RECIPIENT HAS EXCEEDED DISK QUOTA. Then I get to chuckle with glee as I imagine them downloading all the "interesting information" I sent them. :-)
Flango has spoken!
Just tell the caller that you don't have the time to to learn more about their product, but would be more than happy to call them at their home for more details. They're usually taken aback by this, at which point you can ask "What, you mean you don't like people you don't even know calling you at home? Why not?".
:-)
Actually, a couple of times when I've tried this, they did give me their home phone number so I could call them back later.
What was really fun, was one person also had their home number on their web page, so a quick web search gave me all sorts of info on them.
I think I freaked them out a bit when I knew the name of the dog I could hear barking in the background
- Spammers are STOOOPID!
- If you find a smart spammer, see #1 again.
Will we have people stupid enough to forget setting it Priority: Bulk? Is the sky blue?---
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com." The purpose of that site was not known. -- MSNBC 10-26-1999 on MS crack
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
And of course I never spam- I am incredibly hesitant to even use email to try to set up a relationship with a person related to what I'm doing with music or sound engineering. I wrote CmdrTaco- once- asking if he wanted me to record some special Geeks In Space music and sounds to _give_ him in hopes I might get a mention. Never heard back, never tried again- I'm deathly afraid of being thought of as spamming.
Yet you HAVE to market- you HAVE to network, or you're dead- and my awareness of how bad spam is tends to have a profound effect on the way I network. It's like it is forcing me to evolve laborious ways of dealing with it- ways that might be the only good ways of coping with needing to market in a world where connectivity is so vast that 'spam' can mean almost anything.
You, reading this (whoever you are) did not 'ask' to hear from me. Nobody solicited my comment on the slashdot comments page. Yet, the purpose of the thing is for me to cover Natalie Portman with hot gr^H^H^H^H^H^H to make insightful comments ;)
As such, I find that I wait eagerly, hoping to see mp3 related Slashdot articles- because when there is one, I become relevant to the discussion, and I'm telling you, Slashdot is a powerful resource- anybody would want to have their product or service 'slashdotted' (even a free one) but the thing is, Slashdotters are so aware and even touchy about being exploited that you can't bullshit- when I get a chance, I take an _hour_ to type up the best statement of where I'm at on the subject. I put more effort into it than some article authors- I have _been_ a Slashdot article authors- I basically show my respect for the community by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am listening, am part of the community, am in a two-way communication rather than just blathering at people. Sometimes I try to sneak in geek creds and screw up- I mistook "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" for "Cryptonomicon" :)
Because of paying attention to this, I can even make a post that says "BUY MY ALBUM!" all over it in boldface all caps as an intentional parody of desperate hype- because the post _was_ a plea for help getting more respect and credibility for indie mp3-reliant artists, and thus it was on topic. (Yes, that link is real and so is the plea- see how this works? Meta-hype, but honestly I am not fooling about wishing people to buy my nice $5.99 CDs, but here I am talking _about_ the approaches I have to take to be certain I am not doing any variation on spamming)
And because I am willing to be part of the discussion and talk about what I've needed to do in order to take responsibility, I can finish up my comment by just saying a little about where I'm at today- in a way it is on a personal note, but the comment is not ONLY about the personal note, it is entering the discussion about 'legitimate spam' and then allowing my 'legitimate' needs/concerns to be mentioned. Those needs are as follows- BUY MY ALBUM! AHAHAHAHAHAH! *g* No, seriously... well, sure I'd like to see that happen but that's not where I put my priorities. I put giving people free downloads higher on the priority list because I am trying to prove that you _can_ succeed by applying the opensource model to music- and so, there is this specific song that I desperately want to kick ass on the mp3.com charts. That song is "Fire Dragon", which you can download directly from that link without even having to log into anything or leave the slashdot page, and it's 4.7 megs, techno with an extremely high quality production (geek cred again- I physically built equipment to get the drums equalised so that the bassdrum is heavily subsonic and the snare barks really loud :) ) and is actually in 7/4 time, sort of geek techno that is slightly too intellectually demanding for the mainstream music industry :) I'm currently downloading another mp3.com artist friend's entire page for a second time because I like his music and am trying to help him in the charts- he is corruptdata .
Exposure is life- and spam is worthy of the most horrible punishments, so somebody like me has a lot of work to do in order to promote. Basically I have to _be_ part of the community and be actively a part of the discussion while still trying to stand up for the things I do that I am passionate about and desperately want to tell people about :) it can feel like revolution, this being-a-mp3-artist, what with the incredible forces trying to destroy my best hope of distribution for my ART. What if they get mp3s themselves banned or made illegal somewhere? That would be restraint of trade against me, and nobody really considers that! So I keep trying to push it, trying to do this 'popularity', 'promotion' thing _knowing_ that if I manage to get that 5 minutes of fame, I will have a lot to say about the RIAA and the industry and lots of links to raise people's awareness about the abuses of the industry, and that not every mp3-using musician will be so motivated to make such statements.
And at the same time I work just as hard to avoid even the appearance of spam, and have put a lot of effort into trying to educate other net-musicians about why spam is bad and why it makes you vulnerable to losing your account clicky clicky ;) So it's not so much a 'balance' in the sense of 'doing the right amount of spam': it's a question of finding out "When is promotion NOT spam?", realising the answer is "When it is part of a desirable dialogue", and taking the EFFORT, far more effort than it takes to talk and not listen, to be in such a dialogue and include the things that I care so much about, instead of spamming them.
I could have posted just URLS to my stuff here and it would have taken a lot less time, and still to some extent met _my_ needs- but that to my mind would have been spam, because I would not have been listening or being part of the discussion at all. Maybe the fact that I put promo links alone will make some people feel this is still spam- I don't know. I only know that this post of mine is the best analysis I can do of what is spam and what is legitimate- and to me, it's all about whether the communication is two-way. I'll of course be reading all the followups if any, because I _do_ read Slashdot, it's not a pose or drive-by spamming of mp3 links. I think that's key- if every spammer took half an hour to talk with you about what _you_ were talking about and open a dialogue in which they could also mention their wares- there would be no spammers.
Because what defines a spammer, in some way, is that they completely are not interested in YOU at all and are not listening at all and are entering no sort of dialogue at all. In a way, though I tolerate the ones who spend their _own_ money to do that (like flyer-printers, postal mail promo), even those are not the wave of the future, because it is meaningless- you can't distinguish yourself from anybody else that way, and there's so much noise that it all becomes meaningless. That is not only pollution, it is also _useless_...
I really hope I do better than that. Slashdotters know me, periodically get tired of me ranting about mp3 and moderate me down to make me shut up for a bit, they can get my personal email and look at my user page and go to airwindows.com and download all the XPMs and tiles they want to prove that I make stuff for Linux- or look at the GPLed software I wrote to prove that I am a free software author (if not a good one :) ) and basically, I don't need to work too hard to seem like not an intruder. I "live here" as much as any slashdot reader.
So if people like the idea of that kind of community or _want_ to have one of their own kicking ass on mp3.com and giving press conferences slamming hell out of the abuses of the RIAA and the industry- they can stop buying Metallica CDs for a minute, and come up with $5.99 to buy one of my albums or simply take some of their time to download my latest song. You wouldn't believe how helpful that can be- even a mere download, like what you would do on Napster that arguably hurts an artist, is a huge help to an independent mp3.com artist, and even if the album is only $5.99 I see more from it than the major label artists get per album (I get half) and the system for making them is really cool! You get the CD in like two-three days- it's completely press-to-order, they are geared to printing one copy of a CD and its cover to order, something that was never technically possible before! Plus I do cool covers ;) so really, you have no idea just how helpful this support would be _and_ it's damn competitive with major label ripoff! :)
Whoa, got a little enthusiastic there ;) I'll stop before I go farther offtopic. The topic _is_ 'spam vs. promotion'. I think I just got carried away in the direction of promotion... if I only talked about that it _would_ be sort of 'essence of spam'. Thankfully, mostly I didn't :)
_I_ am also currently living on ramen and can't afford a CD- a radio station DJ in the UK asked me to send him my CD and I couldn't because I can't afford to buy my own CD, might be able to next month tho :) so, if any of you had a particular liking for starving artists, at the moment I literally am calculating how best to ration my food for the next week :) I don't need food care packages (if I run out of coca-cola I may reconsider! ;) ) but this is just to say that YES I need the support, that's why I post these things. I'm not Lars Ulrich or any other sort of rich, and I do live what I believe- and you know, I do pretty good music really, and if any of you cable modem guys could hit me with some downloads or those of you who cashed out on the tech stock bubble could pick up some of my CDs, it would help me out a huge amount. I _do_ need the support, I admit it. I try not to be too noisy about it but I do need the support. But I won't email anybody spam to get it ;) rather starve!
I get 200 spams a day on one email alias from 1997.
Freedom of speech is something which exists in public forums, such as the town square. Freedom of the press is something which exists for people who own presses. Both of these are rights which protect you from the government censoring you when you're using your own resources (your voice or your press) to speak your mind. It is not "free speech" for you to come into my house without my permission and preach your doctrines; nor is it "free press" for you to use my resources to disseminate your ads. The former is trespassing and the latter is theft!
If you want to make your words known on the Net, disseminate them in a cooperative forum such as Usenet or Freenet (under the conventions and rules of that forum), or a private forum such as Slashdot (given the owner's permission), or your own personal Web page. Don't do it by stealing from other people, which is what you're doing if you spam.
Those who call have the choice whether or not the take the job. People need to learn personal responsibility for their own actions.
Either way, I try to be a bit more clever about it. They're used to getting yelled at, but not from a nice person trying to make a point.
Just tell the caller that you don't have the time to to learn more about their product, but would be more than happy to call them at their home for more details. They're usually taken aback by this, at which point you can ask "What, you mean you don't like people you don't even know calling you at home? Why not?".
Another fun thing to do is to ask them tons of questions and let them go through their spiel for as long as you can, and then say "no thanks" after they've wasted a half hour or so.
I really don't mind the people so much until they start using really annoying pressure tactics, don't take "no" for an answer, or start reading from an uninspired script as soon as I answer the phone. Stupid stupid stupid.
Yet another fun thing to do is to somehow warp the conversation so that you're trying to sell THEM on something. Say, "no thanks, but I have an opportunity for you!" and go into a big spiel about something they should buy. Have a nice lengthy script all written out if at all possible beforehand. I almost sold one soliciter on a low-cost web hosting plan that way (she took it so well, I actually ordered Caller ID from here).
Last but not least, just ask them for their web address and state that you want to do your research. Of course, all these people care about is their commission, so they'll try to talk you out of it. One woman (working for MCI) hung up on me when I insisted that I liked to do my research first. I was even nice about it. Now, MCI has permanently lost a potential customer. Go figure.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
Those who run the business have the choice whether or not to offer that kind of job.
---
Right, and I blame them too. A little further in my post, I mention that MCI lost a customer. The person they had call me only lost a single 'sale'. If I had the opportunity, I'd rather remove the idiot who thought of using telemarketing in the first place from his position than the person who made the call.
---
People who take the job need the money.
---
That's not an excuse.
First, there are no shortage of "shit jobs" out there, and I doubt they pay any worse than telemarketing.
Second, if you're not making much money, at the very least you can have respectability. Calling people up and disturbing them in their homes looking for a sale is far beneath working at McDonalds or a similar establishment - and as far as I know, _they_ are almost always hiring.
If I wanted their service or product, I can damn well look for it myself.
---
Yes, but for some strange reason you may fail to comprehend, some people find that feeding themselves and their family takes priority over that.
---
This is based on the assumption that the only jobs out there are for telemarketers. I would venture a guess and say that telemarketing is a VERY small minority of the total number of jobs out there - even the low paying ones.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
- Blacklist known spammer sites. (Duh
:) - Opt-out or complain to the uplink. When a spam arrives from a "reputable" company like Caldera, raise one hell of a stink. If it's from some fly-by-night, whine and moan at the ISP until the account's yanked. Usually only takes once.
- Set up a junk account. Go to any of the free "can we please send you ads while you read your mail?" mail sites, like yahoo.com or netscape.com (or even the open-source free ones that thankfully don't toss ads as badly
:), and use *that* address whenever registering software or handing out e-mail addresses on sites.
The important thing to remember is these people are just as persistent as telemarketers. If you just bitch about their existence, they won't ever leave you alone. If you do something about them, they tend to leave you alone. Hanging up on a newspaper salesman (damn you, Rocky Mountain News!) tells his numebers-based machines that you just didn't want to talk to him right now, and that he should call back; maybe you'll be more receptive later, right? If you instead bark specific orders at them, like "put me on your do not call list, and never call me back," then taking legal action if they do it again, they learn real fast. I suppose it does suck that we can't really sue people for spamming us repeatedly. I think adding more laws would be a mistake, though. I don't want to get sued for sending a "hey how's it going?" message to someone I haven't heard from for a few weeks.Read my stuff.
The end-user cost of spam is indeed low -- and that is part of the problem. You see, most non-technical people don't understand what the big fuss is about, because they delete a message or two and think that's all there is to it.
But it's not that simple. All that effort that goes into producing and sending traditional junkmail is duplicated when sending spam. It's less effort, certainly, but it's still there. The difference is that instead of printing presses and mailmen, you've got mail servers and internet bandwidth.
The other difference -- and this is key -- is that with snailmail, the sender pays the bills while with internet spam, your ISP pays the cost. You delete only one or two message, but if your ISP has 1000 customers, that's one or two thousand e-mails per day for your ISP.
If there are 200 million people in the US alone, that's 200-400 million spam e-mails per day, once they all get on-line. Which will certainly tie up the bandwidth so the legitimate stuff can't get through.
The cost of spam is real, and it is not born by those who send it.
The problem is spam is not a political issue. It is an economic one. You don't see too many politicians sending spam saying "Vote for me". Spam is almost entirely commercial advertisements -- whether for fly-by-night get-rich-quick schemes, porno sites, or (formerly) legitimate corporations.
Contacting your representatives is fine, if you want a legal solution. But, since when do major corporations ever follow the laws, if they think they can get away with not doing so? Corporations are interested in money. Period. If they think something will impact the incoming flow of money, they're going to do anything they can to make sure that the money keeps coming.
Letting them know that spamming people will reduce their revenue will make them think twice about using spam as a marketing tool. If enough people complain, the companies that want to stay in business will not send out spam.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
There is no such thing as 'legit spam'. Mass e-mail should *always* be opt-in, with no exception. I consider even RedHat's famous IPO-mail back then to be spam; the proper way to do it would have been with a webpage.
And it costs us some of that money even if we filter it out.
/dev/null through my procmail filter avoids using up disk space on my server, but it still sucks up some bandwidth. I'm paying for that bandwidth, and people upstream from me are paying for it too.
Sure, every message from *@info*.microsoft.com that goes into
If it is this bad already despite the obvious disapproval, imagine how bad it would get if this were approved of by everybody.
The problem with E-mail advertising is that the recipient pays almost all the cost: you pay for the ISP and if ISPs have to expand because of spam, that cost needs to be passed on to you. That provides an almost unlimited economic incentive for spam.
The commercial spam baffles me, though: companies just don't seem to get it. The more junk mail a company like CD-NOW sends me, the less likely I am ever going to buy from them again.
I don't know if many people here do, but a lot of people buy stuff they saw in spam. Some friends of mine who used to work at Xoom.com were actually pretty amazed at just how many people would buy that schlock.
Oh yeah, and another note about Xoom: When you email them asking them to not send you anymore spam, they actually remove you from the list -- they don't, like I suspect a lot of companies do -- use your reply as a red flag which says, "OK, this really is a legitimate email address. Let's spam the Hell outta this guy!"
And no, I have no affiliation with, nor even any fondness for, Xoom.com. Just had some friends who used to work there before NBCi bought 'em out.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Dang ït, that'll teach me to post wïthout prevïewïng. I thïnk ït's ï anyway. :/
Cheers,
ZïcoKnows@hotmaïl.com
> Obviously you don't know what are you talking about. There is not that many websites
> that collect email addresses, yet alone the ones that got any significant mailing list.
> Hence, it is not possible that all businesses would email to all *people* on the Web
> at the same time.
Obviously you didn't read. "If all the corporate websites in the world, which are currently pull media, suddenly became push media tomorrow..."
"If" is one of those powerful words in the English language that allow one to postulate what would happen if a condition changed. The condition that would change would be that corporations that had been relying on pull based web marketting would turn around and switch completely to email.
> I don't know how old are you, but it is ridiculous to expect that businesses
> won't take advantage of a cheap method of directly contacting customer such as
> Email marketing is (aka spam).
Welcome to the internet. If you think I sound like a child, then to you I am a child. (Although that wouldn't make you very perceptive.)
And it is perfectly reasonable to expect businesses to not take advantage of annoying methods of customer harrassment. If I do not give them the money they need to pay their bills, then obviously they are going to change their practices. We are in (pardon buzzword) the information age, and as a consequence, reputation of a company is extremely important to its success, because it's very easy to distribute bad press about a company.
> This is one of the advantage of the "New Economy", something that can't be achieved
> that easy and cheaply elsewhere, and now you suggesting to completely ban it. Obviously
> there should be easy way to opt out from any mailing list
You're thinking like an American. You cannot "ban" spam, and you cannot force companies to comply with opt-out lists. I suggest you examine the extended headers sometime of the spam you get. I live in the U.S., and almost every piece of spam I receive is routed through (or sourced from) at least one foreign country. The U.S. can pass all the laws in the world, but it can't dictate policy to the world.
The only viable solution must be consumer oriented and initiated.
Not new. Been around forever, so far as I can tell; I was using this in 8.8.5, and I didn't have to configure it at all. It just works.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Its called a joke. Look that one up.
And yes, i'm sure there are many secure NT servers out there. The problem is, people keep plugging them back into the wall.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda)
Bowie J. Poag
Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who find sending "direct mail" (aka spam) a perfectly acceptable form of product marketing. Many of them work for otherwise reputable companies.
This is a good time to find out if YOUR company sends those nasty "direct mails" out to people. If not your company, how about companies you do business with? Many places won't care what one person thinks, but when they start to see thousands, or (if you're so lucky to work for a larger company) millions of dollars in lost revenues because of their spam they might start to listen.
Techies like us have more influence on buying decisions and corporate policy than most people realize. Let's use it!
I send spam reports in about legit businesses just like I do with boiler room operations. I use Spamcop to filter my mail, and do the reporting. It makes it super easy to do.
Sometimes it is good to follow up your spam report to the CEO of the company, like I did with Insight - yep the mail order company. Their marketing drone decided that there were not enough people on the mailing list, so he resubscribed EVERYONE they had an email address for (even if you chose not to receive their junk mail when you purchased something from them). So, I wrote a letter to the CEO. The next morning he sent back a message and he was none too happy about it. Not sure what happened to the marketing guy, but from the tone of the CEO's message I would not be too surprised if the guy is now looking for another job.
Most of the time I type in "tjiowm@gjiowm.com" as my email address, or something similar. It works like a charm.
You know.. everybody hates junkmail. Everybody hates spam. Even the CEO of IBM probably hates it, but why do they do it? One reason only!
BECAUSE IT WORKS. It must work. If it doesn't lead to increased revenue, then companies wouldn't spam. So.. perhaps marketing companies/divisions are distorting their facts to show that spam works. Or perhaps a lot of people silently respond to spam.
You know.. I have a policy. If the advertising of a company offends me, I don't buy from it, ever.
Network Associates is one such company. They spam me. When I got a phone call (more spam, the lady was just reading off a card) I told her I would never buy anything from them, because they spammed me.
Vote with your money people. IGNORE companies that spam. Pretend they don't exist.
This was tried. Congress wanted this, with regards to direct-marketing phone calls. What they got in the end was a system whereby companies themselves had to maintain their own opt-out lists. Hardly the same thing at all.
THis is a good idea. Make a list publicly available, on the intenret, of those who's phone numbers and email addresses (and heck! snail mail addresses) do not wish to receive junk mail. Makeit available freely to anyone who wants it, and make it a high crime to violate it.
YES!
just this morning I received two pieces of spam, one from AT&T, hawking more gaddam 1-800-crap, and the other from BellSouth, selling (drum roll please....) e-mails addresses for dot.coms.
I think these are good reasons to FLAME THE SHIT out of companies. At least that's what I did. If you give me your unsolicited, commercial message, I'll give you my uncensored opinion where exactly and how far up, you can stick it.
--
+&x
And unless the foreign country recognizes the legallity of this act, it's meaningless.
The principal difficulty with most notions of regulatiing spam is that it impinges upon freedom of speech. The same pen that denies broadcasting of unsolicited advertisement also shuts down the Franklin-style pamphleteer. We must not, in my view, preclude people from exercising speech based upon the content of that speech, unless we are regulating a particular kind of constitutionally permissible speech (clear and present danger speech, constitutionally regulable obscenity, and other speech falling within exceptions to the first amendment, false statements). Free speech absolutists might not even want to go that far.
One line of thinking suggests requiring the marking of broadcast unsolicited speech, to facilitate filtering. The difficulty here is that this transforms the problem of unconstitutionally prohibited speech to one of unconstitutionally compelled speech. (Imagine that Congress could pass such a law -- what would preclude it from passing a law requiring the tagging of speech containing "indecent" content, and so forth?)
There is another way, one that does not have these constitutional infirmities: preclude FALSE tagging of the mode of distribution. In other words, make it unlawful to say that speech is NOT spam, when, in fact it is.
How would that help? Simple. We adopt by convention a tag indicating, essentially, that "this transmission, or other transmissions substantially similar, were not distributed to more than 100 persons within the past week without their prior consent." Virtually every non-spam mail (including list service transmissions) satisfies this request. All that needs to be done is to have mail clients routinely insert the tag:
X-DISTRIBUTION: 100, 7
This would, however, constitute a regulable false statement by spammers. Then, individuals can determine whether to opt-in or not. The approach does have its limits, but if the law gives meaningful teeth in its enforcement (statutory damages, award of attorney fees, class action provisions), it will help to keep, at least, the legitimate entities honest, and the illegitimate ones relatively small.
At the very least, it would impact upon the incentive to spam.
If you'd have read the headline, or even better, the article itself, it's not legitimizing spam, it's condemning spam sent by legitimate (ie. well-known) companies.
Quoting from the article itself:
A growing number of companies are using e-mail for direct marketing. These aren't fly-by-night spammers with get-rich-quick schemes or steaming come-ons to hot sex sites. No, these are legitimate businesses --companies that think they have the right to send me unsolicited mail simply because they have my e-mail address.
Mr. Garfinkel agrees with you.
And most mailing list processors will change
user+company@site
to:
user@site
company@site
user+company@site
user+other@site
So you end up with serveral times as much junk.
I noted that the address attached to my Slashdot account, st90300@jag uar1.usouthal.edu, is public and more or less open to spammers. The interesting thing about it is that, in my Slashdot profile, I'm not trying to obscure it the way pretty much everyone else [amusingly] does -- and yet I never get any spam that is traceably from Slashdot. (Nor has anyone ever emailed me for that matter.) I think the large degree of address obfuscation here must be offputting to marketers, who must see this site as poor fodder.
In any event, I had that in my previous comment as sort of an aside and now it's gone. What's going on here? If Slashdot comments are open to revision after posting, that is a serious issue that needs to be brought out in the open. If I had any idea that people would be able to muck around with what I was typing, I wouldn't bother to type it. I'd like an answer about this matter -- I have a hard time taking commentary seriously after realizing this can and does happen. Grrr....
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If there are legit, why would they want to associate themselves with the aforementioned likes of spammers? Obviously, any legit company that decides it's time to start spamming (isn't this illegal in many states anyway?) they are going to have a hard time holding on to that 'legit' qualifier.
Any company, legit or otherwise, that stuffs my mailbox (email or otherwise) with junk, I don't support. Telephone marketers, likewise. Whose with me?!
coolfish
Once upon a time, advertising used to be so cost-ineffective little more was done other than hanging a sign over one's business's door. Then some ingenious man invented the movable press. Even so, advertising wasn't that effective. There was no good way to distribute it but pay some people to pass out pamphlets on the street. It just didn't reach that many people. Newspapers became the best mode of advertising available at the time and remained so until modern postal services began: snail mail spam, originally in the form of the Sears Catalogue.
Radio opened another door, and a much more effective one than what came before. Now the listeners were captive audiences, ie. they couldn't simply not read an ad that didn't catch their eye, or throw out the piece of junk they got in the mail. All they could do was stop listening or change the station. It was relatively cheap and could reach large audiences, and you had a good way to measure how many people were actually listening to your solicitations. Thus began the era of modern advertising.
Television soon took over, and, while more effective than radio, was also much more expensive. It kept the system relatively clean. It still cost money to advertise, and the more effective advertising you wanted, the more you had to pay (better time slots, tv over radio, all cost more).
And now we have email. Your email address is becoming just as easy to get nowadays as your snail mail address. It's just as effective, if not more-so, than snail-mail spam (easier access to the product if it's online), it's *CLOSE TO FREE*, and it's INSTANT (more or less). If you're sly about it, you could encode the url's in your email to query your web address and see how many people actually clicked through (instantly guaging how many people not only went for more information, but how many people actually BOUGHT the product online). It's almost the perfect medium for advertising, if people didn't hate it so much.
What's my point? My point is, the more efficient and ubiquitous communication becomes, the more intrusive advertising can become. And that's just what spam is, in all forms: intrusive. Most people don't want to see commercials on TV, hear them on radio, get them in their mailbox OR their inbox; it's all downright intrusive. The worst case yet is starting to show, too: as email becomes even more ubiquitous, you'll start seeing more and more spam, from legit and non-legit companies alike, and it will be more and more intrusive, and eventually, given its efficiency, become THE MOST intrusive advertising delivery method in existance.
This is why people care.
72656B636148206C72655020726568746F6E41207473754A
A possible solution to this would be to refuse any unencrypted E-Mail, and set your encryption key to about 4096 bits. It takes about 10 seconds on my PII 300 at work to encrypt an e-mail sized /etc/motd to a 4096 bit key. Joe Random Spammer isn't going to spend the time to encrypt to my key, he's not going to buy the computer hardware and even if he did, encrypting a million messages to a million different keys would take a significant amount of time, making spammer detection and elimination much easier. Your average spammer isn't even going to get your mail bounce with your encryption key in it.
I suspect that by using this method, you'd cut your spam count to 0. As for mailing lists, you can poke holes in your rules for them on a case by case basis.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's kind of a relief to learn that I'm not the only one who's been hearing about Benchmark's Laser Printer Toner sale for the past three years.
- Michael
The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded. The good do good because the good is rewarded.
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
Spam == Unsolicited COMMERCIAL email
College information would hardly qualify as commercial (even though it might qualify as trash)
</NITPICK>
And if you get your mail adress from the college (or your employer) *they* are fully justified in sending group mail. (Terms of use etc etc)
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Hi!
Actually, I have not bought anything I first learned of through spam.
But that's because the sales rep won't be here till Tuesday. Then I'm buying.
I get spam just like anybody else. I get the photocopier toner sales, the multi-level marketing spiels, and seemingly endless variations on Neiman-Marcus cookies forwarded by Daughter #2's voice teacher. But last Friday I actually saw a useful promotion in what was unabashed B-spam (B2B-spam?).
A local sales manager for an upstart alternative phone company named ChoiceOne B-spammed every web domain holder in his territory (the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania). This was a pretty amateur effort: he even mistyped the URL to his company's website. But the company is offering something I want--dramatically lower-cost bandwidth.
(Digression: I'm 23,000 feet from the nearest CO, so DSL is out of the question. What this outfit (ChoiceOne--http://www.choiceonecom.com) is offering to do is resell a local T1 circuit to the CO, where they have a point of presence (for the DSL service they're offering in-town). This is dramatically cheaper than any other alternatives--it means that my bandwidth charges drop from $485/month for 64Kbps to $375/month for 512Kbps. This may seem overpriced to you urban cowboys, but out here in the sticks this is terrific news.)
The rep's coming out on Tuesday. I'll visit with him, then take him up the road to visit a sometime client who also wants to sign up.
So yes--count me as someone who has bought a service from a spammer. In my case (at least right now) it seems like too good a deal to pass up.
John Murdoch
Actually, that's not true. The company faces a lawsuit in a foreign country. They either defend the lawsuit, or refuse to acknowledge another country's legal system. If they refuse, the plaintiff will likely win given that they face no opposition, and they can get a court order to freeze the company's assets...
You can legislate in the world economy, you need to obey the laws in every country that you do business...
Alex
As a former employee of MCI whose job, in part, was to bust unethical or misbehaving telemarketers, I think I can say a few things here.
(Yes, it was a very satisfying aspect of my job!)
First, telemarketing works. It's maybe 20x more effective than snail mail. Second, your telemarketer really didn't handle the situation very well. Every telemarketer at MCI is set up so they can instantly snail mail you information on whatever plan they happen to be offering you at the time. (Of course, you can also check out same on the web site.) And they can call you back at a later, mutually agreed upon date and time. (This saves them from losing their commission and allows people to go and do their own research.) Which, if you're interested, you'd probably want to do, since the telemarketers can offer you special deals or promotions that aren't advertised on the web site.
But anyway, the point is telemarketing works. Far fewer people are bothered by it than spam. And oddly enough, it draws a better response than direct (snail) mail.
Oh, yeah. If a telemarketer calls you and does anything stupid, like curse at you, hang up on you, tell you they'll give you free long distance forever, etc., call in to MCI's customer service number and report the incident. These incidents are passed up to the Customer Research department which does a preliminary investigation into the report, and sends those with merit to the National Escalation Center which is a glorified term for a large office full of HR types who decide whether to spank or fire the telemarketer. :)
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
ok... I'm sure I'll be hated for this, but... Everyone is way to uptight about it. A certian amount of "spam" is needed. But only in very select circumstances. For instance. At my college, all sorts of paper anouncements go out during the year. This includes information such as a students class schedules, and upcoming academic changes. This costs a lot in terms of money and trees. I have heard the school tried switching to e-mail based notification a while back. Students were furious at this "spam". Rumor has it that one even threatened police action. After this, the school switched back to paper. The point being, that "hot sluts for you" spam and the like is bad, but people shouldn't flip out about all spam. Unfortunatly, people treat all unsolicited e-mail as the same thing, and with the same attitude. ---Lane
What's the point of moderating?!
This might be slightly off-topic, but since so many of us are plagued by spam, I should probably bring it up. I use SpamCop (http://www.spamcop.net/) to filter my e-mail, and it works very well. It's a great tool to send reports to the system administrators of systems which send out spam, and by sending spam reports you help to close down spammers' accounts.
This is also possible with Exim; I use it a lot now, almost every time I give out an email address I suffix it with the company I'm giving it to. (Exim also has the advantage of English-like config files that are about 8 zillion times easier to use than sendmail)
.ac.uk and .org.uk addresses.
Interestingly, I get almost no spam. I reckon this is because:
- I don't post to USENET
- I don't have a webpage with anything on it
- I have
userid+TheCompanyNameHere@your-domain.com
or
userid+programFoo@your-domain.com
The message will be delivered to "userid" but can be filtered on "TheCompanyNameHere" or "programFoo". You can use this to track if/how another company gets your email address.
S.P.A.M. - Stupid People's Advertising Methods
Some reasons why I complain about spam:
- It costs ME money. I PAY for my net connection. My snail mailbox is free. Junk that goes in there I didn't pay for. The company sending it did. Spam is like mail coming postage due. Imagine getting a flyer from your local grocery store and being REQUIRED to pay $0.50 to receive it. Spam is like that. You don't even get the choice to deny it. You are FORCED to pay for it.
- The free aspect of it means that anyone can send it to everyone. Think about it -- I get at least two or three ads in my snail mailbox a day that are for local stores. What prevents these local stores from telling the world about themselves via snail mail? Cost. There is no real cost for spam. Now take each city with a population over 10k in America, multiply that by 3, and you can see how useless your email box will be 20 years in the future. "Would you like to download the 30,000 messages you received last night?".
- Much spam is offensive. In real life (in the US) there are laws to prevent the mailing of smut. If you get it once and complain, that company is liable for some serious fines. Fines that the state will chage them with. You don't even have to worry about getting the smut again. But there are no such laws for spam, so if some company advertising "Boys 10 and under, star in a porno picture and make $$$" wants to advertise (from a country where this is legal) to young boys, they can without repurcussions.
- The fact that snail mail spam is so easily traceable keeps it reasonably legit. Not so with spam.
- And, that brings me to my last point. Most spammers DON'T want to be found out, so they CRACK servers on the internet, they DENY service, and do other nasty things so they can anonymously mail things out, and let the brunt of the attack fall on someone else.
As you can see, spammers are nothing more than cheapass sleazeballs, willing to sell crack to 10 year old boys so they can get them into their latest pedophile picture. Disgusting.
Another example of an externality is pollution. By polluting, a company may be able to do business more cheaply (because it doesn't pay to clean up its emissions) but this foists off the costs upon others, in the form of damaged property, sickened people and animals, and other losses.
If I run a chemical company, I have no right to lower my production costs at the expense of giving you cancer or chloracne. Similarly, if I run an online business, I have no right to lower my costs of advertising by forcing you and your ISP to pay for the bandwidth and disk space incurred by my ads.
Insofar as a chemical company is dumping PCBs in my water, making me sick or stupid, that chemical company is not being a legitimate business; it is being a criminal business. Similarly, insofar as an online business is forcing its advertising costs on me, it is not a legitimate business.
As the person at a web host (dreamhost.com) who deals with it, it does cost. Some spammers abuse our resources so much, we have no choice but to cancel their accounts (this is our policy - immediate cancellation w/o refund). Load on our servers increases, it interferes with legitimate user processes, and so on.
The time it takes to deal with this, plus the cost of bandwidth and server load, is passed on to our customers. They pay for someone else's 'free' advertising.
Then, there's the other side of the coin. The ISP who has to receive the spam passes on the exact same costs to _their_ customers. It's a bad thing all around, except for the spammer.
This isn't even mentioning the time the recipient has to spend sorting through it all, the fact that children receive the exact same porn spam, that it's illegal in some places, and that it legitimizes the practice.
In the end, these people are forging headers and are usually blatantly breaking the rules that their provider lays down. I don't have any sympathy for the creeps, and wouldn't mind if certain terrible things happen to them.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
> What do you mean legislation isn't going to work? You can't just say that without
> backing it up.
*BEEP* News Flash, this just in... The world does not consist of one country. Not all companies are headquartered in the same country. No industry can be controlled by the laws of any country. I reference copyright laws of the U.S. and piracy in China. I reference crypto laws of the U.S. I reference censorship laws of the U.K. and the movement of British protest sites to other countries. I reference the DeCSS trial and the associated broadcast over Australian T.V.
You cannot legislate a world economy.
I didn't mention that because I assumed that was common knowledge among the Slashdot crowd.
Quoting from the Hacker's Lexicon:
"(...) 5. To mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical email messages, particularly those containing advertising. Especially used when the mail addresses have been culled from network traffic or databases without the consent of the recipients."
If its email, and its trying to sell me something I didnt ask for, its spam
Oxymorons.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda)
Bowie J. Poag
No way! What we really need is to get even MORE FREAKED OUT over it. Spam adds about $2 - $3 a month to the cost of Internet access in the US. Wouldn't you like to save $3 a month. How about if saving that $3 meant not getting any spam?
You've obviously never administered a mailserver. Do you now what happens when a spammer does a dictionary attack on your Sendmail box? I'll tell you. You get to spend the next twelve hours cleaning up the mess, that's what! You have hundreds of angry users calling YOU up, and bawling YOU out, because they didn't ask for this turdlet MMF scheme or PR0N in their inboxes, and don't know who to complain to (but they've got your number, sure enough). Meanwhile, you have to order more memory, install another 6Gig hard drive, and additional bandwidth, just to get things back to a usable level? Multiply that $3 per user, per month by 100,000.
Then try to tell me not to get freaked out.
Yeah right, "just hit delete". Try it for 100,000 users. IT DOESN'T SCALE!!!
See, the problem with your thinking, is that you're only really thinking about you. But it's not just YOUR problem. If it takes three days to locate and disconnect an active spammer, just how many emails has he sent in that time. How many million "Just Hit Delete"s before you get the point? How many ISPs are there, passing the cost of controlling this problem along to their customers at how many millions of dollars expense?
How 'bout a little back of the envelope calculations, here...
Let's see, $36/year times 100,000 for a largish ISP, or $3.6 Million per ISP. OR for AOL, which gets TWICE as much spam $72/year time 15 million, (spam cost AOL $1.08 Billion? You have the gall to say JUST HIT DELETE?).
Every spam I get will result in some luser getting whacked from the 'net. Guaranteed. No questions.
> You gain nothing by being rude to the caller. He/she is just someone making not much money, and will no power to make it stop.
No, they have a moral obligation to society to get another job.
A friend that used to work in the trama ward at the local hospital used to tell the telemarkters that he was the one that would be putting them back together if they wrecked their car on the way home and he can do his job much better if he got some sleep.
The only difference I've noticed between honest companies and spammers is at least the honest companies will give you a way off the list and give a valid address up front. Not much better then the spammers but every little bit helps.
I've got a couple of ways to deal with spam. The first and most effective is to keep more than one email address. My main address is only available to friends, colleagues, and a mailing list or two. Another one is the "public" address, which gets used for site registrations and that sort of thing. I don't really care as much if that address gets spammed, because it's easier to ignore and filter it there. My other strategy for dealing with spam is to have a boilerplate ready for incoming junk mail. It's nice & lawyerly, and while I can no longer remember where I got it or whether it's actually accurate anymore (can't be bothered to check the US code), it's sufficiently intimidating that I assume it keeps at least some of the marketers away.
It has been pointed out to me that such a strategy might be flawed, however. for one thing, spammers can easily fake the address, so the boilerplate might go to a nonexistent or innocent party. Maybe so. More importantly, marketers might see any address that sends bck a reply -- even an 'unsubscribe' request -- as being live and worth spamming more in the future. Good point. These friends tell me that it's more effective to pass along the offending message to the kind folks at nospam.org (?- i think) instead.
Even still, sending out that boilerplate makes me feel a lot better, even if it isn't having the biggest impact. Short of carrying out my real wish (that is, to have marketing declared as a capital offense, punishable by anyone within range of the offender whether or not they are an appointed agent of the law), sending it back makes me feel a whole lot better, and I fully encourage you all to share, distribute, and use it as well...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
CT, you've really brought up one of my pet peeves. I hate it when the 900 number have typos... uhhh, not that I ever call those things... Just checking them out so that I can collect information for my Anti-SPAM lawsuit, you see... Yeah, that's it, collecting information!
-Jordan Henderson
[ ] I would like exciting news.
About what? When? exciting? pfffft
[ ] I want anouncments of product updates.
Does this mean that every time the programer farts in his code he's going to send out an update to inform me that: "wondersoft has updated 1.2.3 to 1.2.4"?
[x] Please do not add me to the mailing list.
OOOoooo the pre-checked box. Does unchecking it mean Yes or No? Is the list a shared user list or one way company PR newswire thing?
I believe that if companies were more forthcoming about when and what they send to your email, people would feel less over welmed when it happens.
___
Serious question: Has anyone here at /. actually *ever* bought a good or service that they learned about through spam? Or, do you guys know anyone who has?
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
Hell, just look at all the human time I've wasted typing this up-- the time I spent outlining this mess exceeds my spam-removal time by a factor of 10, at least. It's silly. Let's just hit delete and let it go.
(at further risk of being modified up the wazoo) Why is it that we always talk about "voting with our dollars"? Hell, as a nation, we hardly bother to vote with our votes. Sure, where you put your cash makes a sort-of political statement, but actually making political statements, contacting your reps (they're nice folks, even the pig-fuckers) and voting at every freaking opportunity really does a much better job of it.
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
Congress should order the Federal Communications Commission to create a nationwide list of people who do not wish to receive junk e-mail. Then it should target pornographers by making it a crime, with a $1,000-per-violation penalty, to send e-mail that advertises a sexually explicit Web site to any of those registered e-mail addresses. If this system works, it could then be expanded to other domains, such as "get rich quick" schemes and eventually to unsolicited advertisements of any kind.
Why is it bad? First of all, it legitimizes opt-out lists, which is what spammers want. Not only will they think they'll be free to send us their junk, it'll cost us. We'll still be in the same situation that we are in now.
Second, it doesn't address the potential of abuse hidden in unverified opt-in lists. To recap, verified opt-in lists send you an e-mail asking if you really want to subscribe to a list before actually subscribing. This is done no matter what method is used to subscribe. Unverified Opt-in just spams you in a haze wondering who the !)@)*#( signed you up.
Third, it doesn't address the best current practices as subscribed in the RFC's. There are many RFC's out there dealing with spam now. I suggest everyone read them. Faqs.Org has them.
There are better ways of success. Spread the word. Remain calm. Kill spam.
---
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com." The purpose of that site was not known. -- MSNBC 10-26-1999 on MS crack
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Push media are media such as spam, or telemarketers, or junkmail that shove their information down your throat. Pull media are media such as a website, or a TV show, or a radio program, that you actively access.
Most consumers usually prefer pull media because they prefer then they only access the information they want, while most businesses usually prefer push media, because then they can share their information with people that "might not know they want our product".
The argument for corporations using push media is fatally flawed. Simply consider it as this. If all the corporate websites in the world, which are currently pull media, suddenly became push media tomorrow, the web would crash to a halt within hours.
Why? Every corporation would email every person on the web one copy of their website. That's somewhere around 100 million or so websites times 100 million some users. In other words, approximately 10 quadrillion email messages of, let's conservatively say 1K each, or approximately 10,000 terrabytes of information sent out in one morning.
This is obviously NOT technologically feasible, nor is it efficient, nor do I want to erase 100 million spam messages from my emailbox in the morning. Clearly pull media must become the default method of communication.
Unfortunately, we cannot fight this with legislation (yes, if you're a U.S. politician reading this, sorry to burst your clueless little bubble). I see only two ways to fight this. One is with technology, as we have been doing with blackhole lists to filter email from senders of spam. Unfortunately, this only works against obscure porn sites and "Do YOU want to make 4 gazillion dollars from the comfort of your own home?" offers.
For legitamite businesses we need a different approach. It is simple though, rely on capitalism to work it's magic. Boycott any company that doesn't follow two simple rules:
1. Use pull media primarily for all customer communications.
2. Use push media only when specifically requested by the customer.
I already do this myself, and I urge you to do the same. As soon as it becomes "socially unacceptable" for companies to use push media, they will not do so, but it will take persistence. If you want to be helpful, bitch about how annoying spam and telemarketers are to your friends. This might sound unproductive, but it's the most beneficial thing you can do. If you complain to enough people about it, it will amplify (or seed) their dislike of it, and eventually everyone will dislike companies that spam.
When that occurs, mission accomplished, the consumers control the communication.
is that in the business world, we vote with our dollars. If we receive spam from a fly-by-nighter, we just don't use their product (not that we would anyway). But what do we do when we get spam from Sony[TM]? Again, we must vote with our dollars, and make it clear that we will not buy their product until they cut out the immature marketing style.
And that's the problem. I want to make my voice heard, but I want to buy cool, sexy tech toys even more so. I don't wanna stop buying Sony stuff. So when I see a cool company sending spam, I'm forced to choose between buying to make a political statement and buying because the product is good.
thin is the line we tread.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed