Slashdot Mirror
Another Whack at Spam
mmoncur writes "Tim Bray just put up an article called Another Whack at Spam that has been getting some attention. It just looks like a variation of the old pay to send idea to me."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I looked at the article, and I still don't see how payments would even work. I have to send a few emails a day -- so I'm paying pennies per day? That's ridiculous. Plus, there's already all this software that sends and receives email for free... it's all going to have to change. It's a herculean effort, and will still result in spam -- regular mail costs a ton in comparison, and I still get junk mail in there. Perhaps filters plus busting bad offenders will eventually make a good difference... just taking my name off of lists has helped me a great deal.
stuff |
The only viable solution to spam using the current infrastructure is learning algorithms such as Bayesian spam filters. (Would be interesting to see if similar techniques could be used to beat such spam filters and get spam through..)
Trying to get everyone to change from SMTP to something else just isn't going to work. There is too much for an instant change. This principle is basically why we're still using IPv4.
You will not change every person's behavior. Especially if it changes from doing something for free to paying to do the same thing.
The spam problem will only be solved by changing the underlying technology that is invisible to end users.
That way, you only have to change the behavior of every postmaster. :)
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
It costs me less than a penny a piece to deal with an individual spam. Hit delete, turn on my filter, etc. Is it really such a nuisance that we have to waste billions of dollars to "solve" it?
This seems to be an ISP solution, not a user-oriented solution. A user-oriented solution would be authentication based. Why not put a system in place to check the validity of the "real" sender and be done with it? What does the penny solution have over this? Both require all SMTP servers to be upgraded.
It is easy to see that there are SOME spammers who would pay. Just like with telemarketing. It costs them. We would just end up with the problem all over again.
No thanks. I already pay for ISP service. Next, they'll want to charge Web hosts for every page they serve up in order to stop pop-up ads. Sounds like a vast left-wing conspiracy! We'll TAX the problem out of existance! Never works.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Here's an idea. Instead of blacklisting domains that spammers use (because we all know that they have effectively an infinite supply) or going to extreme lengths such as paying for each email sent, why don't we make it so that emails may be classified based on the volume of mail they send, and such classification be mandatory? Hence, we could block certain accounts that were sending, say, more than 10,000 emails per day. If, for example, there were a digital certificate in each email that added one to a remote counter for that email operated by an independant entity, and our emails were configured to only accept emails sent with such a certificate, I think it would be a feasible idea (except perhaps for the bandwidth costs involved in keeping track of said counters, but I don't have the answers to everything).
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
If I get this right, the idea is to lose the one clear advantage email has over regular mail, namely no cost (let's ignore actual ISP costs, those are together paid by the sum total of all internet subscribers in the world).
By artificially making each email cost something, the economics of the email system become identical to the economics of postal email, except it's faster. That's the idea, unless I'm missing something.
Now in the real world, we already have an example of a system with such economic properties, namely the postal system. Unfortunately, in the real world, we also have an example of the way spammers have adapted to that economic system. It's called junk mail, and I get tons of it in the physical mailbox.
So maybe the companies pay for their junk mail to be delivered to my physical mailbox. Guess what? I still don't want it. But they paid for it, so I guess it'ts allright....not.
Thanks but no thanks. I'll take my chances with a personal junk filter.
p.s. I accept that ISPs have a huge problem, but this way is only going to legitimize spammers who are willing to pay.
"That means that some formerly-free list subscriptions are now going to cost you a penny a message. Deal with it; it's the price of killing spam."
I'm on quite a few mailing lists, due to my wide range of interests. I can receive 400-600 messages a day from these lists. So I should spend $4-$6 a day to fight spam, eh? The largest estimate of the cost to ISPs for dealing with spam has me paying about $8 a month.
Its a nice idea, but it just won't fly. Try again.
This sounds like it might actually work.
This is more than just sending off a single email to a scantly watched abuse email.. This means getting hold of a real person and explaining, realistisay, what sort of legal liabilities they might be open to if they continue to support the spammer's actions. (Hacking laws, aiding and abetting, Trademark infringement and vicarious liability) often fit in there.
If more people would do this, life would get a lot harder for spammers.
Perhaps Tim needs to re-write his filter, but I think that Bayesian filters are not the solution to the problem. They are the solution to a symptom of the problem. Hiding spam email under the rug is not going to reduce the overhead incurred in transferring around junk. Those emails do not magically appear in your inbox. This solution of his is flawed in many ways, but it does what filtering doesn't: it attacks the root of the problem, instead of playing defensive hot potato.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
I dont want to pay to send email. I just dont
Then learn to live with spam. The bottom line is, as long as it is free, spam will flourish. That's what it really comes down to. That's what every spam-attacking strategy must work with or against. It has to cost something, and these compromises are all about finding a "something" that is insignificant for normal users sending < 1000 emails a month, but prohibitive when it reaches up into the millions of emails per month.
If you are unwilling to compromise on your "zero-cost" requirement, then you will never be rid of spam. It's as simple as that.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Most spammers would gladly pay 1c per email
You're wrong. The only reason spam works is because it is free to send. If they send out 5,000,000 emails and get a 0.1% response rate, with a profit of $5 per sale, then they've just earned $25,000. Since it cost them nothing to send those emails, then that is $25,000 of pure profit. Hell, even if they only sold one product through those 5,000,000 emails, then the $5 profit is worth it, because it is more than their cost (which was nothing).
If the emails cost 1 cent to send, then those 5,000,000 spams now cost them $50,000 to send, which obliterates their $25,000 profit, and then some. Suddenly, it's not worth it. And they'll stop doing it.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
The problem with Bayesian filters is that, if they are used enough, they will drive spammers to make their spam look less spammy, and then getting those extra 9s of efficiency without getting a bad false-positive rate gets harder.
Okay, that works for you, fine. But I'm guessing you don't get very much spam. Imagine if you got over a thousand spam messages a day (as someone I know has been doing). That's an average of one every 86 seconds. Wouldn't you find it more of a nuisance then? Wouldn't you be considering drastic measures, or even payment, to avoid that?
I'm not saying that this proposed solution is a good one; I don't think that it is. But please don't assume that everyone's experience of spam is the same as yours, because as a problem it varies very widely.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.