Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Steps Up Anti-Spam Efforts
An anonymous reader writes "Bill Gates announces new focus at Microsoft to abolish spam. Read the announcement titled Toward a Spam-Free Future."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
His editorial on the same subject in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Step 1) Get rid of Hotmail Step 2) Er, that's it.
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
By any chance have you read the fifteen volume license agreement you signed up when you created your MSN/Hotmail account?
Ayup
Amusing, true..but technically, one could argue that you *are* soliciting those advertisements, simply by signing up with MSN. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the advertisements, by becoming a user of their service, you are giving your assent. Whether actively or passively, it doesn't matter; in the end, you always have the option of going elsewhere.
I'm not saying that it's fantastic that they spam you, but they aren't forcing you to use their service, either.
actually being modded funny doesn't acount for any karma points.
from the faq:
Note that being moderated Funny doesn't help your karma. You have to be smart, not just a smart-ass.
Rhetoric is find and good, but anyone can thump their chest and say they are for this or against that-the proof of their commitment is in the actions they take after the speeches and editorials of this week are curbside awaiting removal next week.
Perhaps their first step, if they are truly interested in reducing the level of spam, would be to start at the point of installation. My past experience has been that unless one went in and did a custom install, many times things were installed that were not only completely unnecessary for the average user, but unknown to those very users. And in what were often insecure default configurations. SMTP servers are not needed in every installation location, even less frequently is the need to allow relay from addresses outside of the network on which the machine resides, and proxy servers are necessary even less frequently still. Yet some past default install configurations would install services such as these, services unneeded whose removal could prove at times to be a Herculean task.
Step number two closely coincides with this: customer education. Very few people I know want to wade through a 1000+-page book or two on configuring just one piece of software on their machine, but many of the users who find themselves being contacted by their local abuse personnel have no idea the steps that led to their machine being an unwitting conduit for exploitation and relay. It seems that a little extra work to make the default configurations more secure, and to advise the less-advanced installing users in clearer terms what the potential consequences of configuration choices could be, could result in enormous payoffs in reducing the number of systems that could be used for such nefarious purposes.
It has been some time since I have spent much time working with systems based on their software, and perhaps the experiences I have had with their software (which led to my comments above) are no longer the case. I hope this is so, but do not believe it to be the case yet. I truly hope they are earnest in their claim of a desire for a spam-free future, and to this end, I hope they will truly work with the standards bodies and the community-at-large to help eradicate the problem.
3 things. First you should never have preview pane open. Bad, bad, bad practice. If you scan most subjects before clicking you can tell it is spam (random letters are a good clue).
Second, Add the "To" column to your email list. If you see odd names in the "To" section it is a good indicator that it is a bulk emailed spam.
Finally, you can adjust active content by going under the security tab in the Options menu and changing the internet security level to high.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I believe you are correct:
(article) "We favor the idea of setting up independent email trust authorities to establish and maintain commercial email guidelines, certify senders who follow the guidelines, and resolve customer disputes."
So in their 'favoured' model it would be easy to identify and filter out 'legitimate commercial' messages because they would be signed by a trust authority. It's not so bad, unless the want individuals to sign with the same trust authorities to allow messages into Exchange servers or something.
"Similar authorities already help in protecting people's privacy online, with organizations such as TRUSTe and BBBOnline providing certification for Web sites and companies that follow guidelines on the use of customers' data."
If a site has a TRUSTe logo, all that means is that they depict in very clear language how you will be hosed. Not to mention that TRUSTe has loopholes the size of trucks. I don't know about BBBOnline though.
I agree with the OP - MSFT wants to make it legal for them and their partners to spam you. Remember, MSFT believes that everyone will be behind and exchange server one day so if MSFT gets what it wants, all of its 'commercial messages' will be guaranteed to get to all recipients and will will not be blockable because it's legal.
Several months ago, a /. post suggested setting up a HotMail account with the username == the serial number of a dollar bill in your wallet. When you sign up, uncheck all the "send me stuff" offers. Do not give out this email to anyone in any form.
I took the dare. To date, I have only received email from "Hotmail Staff". Most of that has been service information ("Don't give people your password:, etc). One sent June 19 was spam (titled, " Listen to 50 Cent, Avril & Coldplay â" try it ... ", I certainly didn't ask for this).
My verdict: HotMail isn't selling your address. The spam in your HotMail InBox is probably coming from dictionary attacks or other forms. I'm not saying that HotMail couldn't do more to prevent spam. I'm simply saying HotMail isn't selling your address.