Slashdot Mirror
Study on the Effects of Spam on End Users
An anonymous reader writes "'About a third of people responded to a spam, seeking more information. And 7 percent actually bought a product or service.' Who are these people? Is this really what non-techies do with Spam? They can have my Spam if they want it :-)"
They're your friends, family and/or neighbors. In short, they are people who view a computer as merely a tool, not a hobby or profession. It would be interesting to run this every year and study trends. I expect that Joe & Mary Sixpack are becoming more aware of spam very quickly.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
See, the problem with the 'approve' scheme (at least the simple, naive version that comes to mind) is that instead of being flooded with annoying messages you will get flooded with no-less-annoying and no-less-intrusive requests for approval/authorization, still creating a DOS-like situation due to the low SNR...
So that won't necessarily ease the problem.
Don't confuse intelligence with knowledge.
/.'ers have had some mechanic laugh at them behind their back - "can you believe they agreed to pay an extra $200 to have their air filter replaced? They can't be very intelligent".
I'm sure a few very intelligent
Just because you know nothing about how much an airfilter costs doesn't mean you are stupid, and likewise with photoshop.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
The report is based on a randomized, national phone survey of 2,200 adults.
Now, I wonder why a survay carried out in this manner recorded an unusually high number of people responding to spam?
Maybe a truer responce would have been acheved if every time someone told them to fuck off and slammed the phone down they treated this as an 'I dont respond to spam' reply
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Sure, at first the approval system would suffer from DOS like problems. But once 99.999% of spam never reaches the end user, there is less incentive to send it.
The problem will be if a large group of people still accept and read spam. The only way to stop spam will be if A) people do not buy the shit they sell or buy into the scams they offer, or B) spam is controlled by methods outside of the end users hand.
I still think this will not be a legislative solution. I really think that a large majority of mail hosts should implement white listing, at least for messages that are sent to multiple recipients. If multiple similar messages are received by a mail host from the same or similar mail host(s) then they should be blocked. If a user wishes to be part of a legitimate mail list then there should be a way to authorize that host to send messages. Sure, it will be a pain for some mail lists but utilities will pop up to make it easier for them to do the authorization dance.
If the top 5 mail hosts would participate, spammers would be obsolete.
Some people would argue that blocking unauthorized messages would prevent some people from receiving mail that they would like to receive. But companies that send mail to so many people obviously are being harmful to more people than they are providing a service to. (If you call con-ing people into buying useless crap a service, even to people who fall for it.)
-Jacob