Slashdot Mirror


Opting Out Increases Spam?

J. L. Tympanum writes "I used to ignore spam but recently I have been using the opt-out feature. Now I get more spam than ever, especially of the Nigerian scam (and related) types. The latter has gone from almost none to several a day. Was I a fool for opting out? Is my email address being harvested when I opt out? Has anybody had similar experience?"

40 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by malkir · · Score: 5, Informative

    It *does* show the spammers that the account is active and you're looking at the email...

    1. Re:Well... by telchine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. If this is a newsletter that you've opted in to, then you can safely opt out.

      If you didn't opt-in in the first place what makes you think they're going to act faithfully with an opt-out request?!

      All that opting out does in those circumstances is prove that your address is an active one, and that makes it loads more valuable, so they'll sell it on to their spammers as a premium "active email address!

    2. Re:Well... by Ocker3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If it's an e-mail list you signed up for from a reputable source, unsubscribing will get you off of that list. If it's junk that you didn't sign up for, what makes you think they'll suddenly become reputable when they get an unsubscribe message? They'll simply onsell your e-mail address as an active one and keep going. Whitelist your address book, keep an eye on your spam folder for new legitimate incoming e-mails and contacts, and make heavy use of the delete option.

    3. Re:Well... by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not just a newsletter, but any place that you know is a legitimate website/business, etc. should be more than safe to opt out of, because they have to adhere to CAN-SPAM Act or similar laws/regulations in other countries. Not only that, they may have a reputation worth upholding.

      Virtually everything else is going to be a red flag to send you even more spam. They have zero accountability, and no incentive to stop because they are probably stealing the bandwidth from someone else's compromised PC anyway.

      Really, this should be common sense for most of the Slashdot readership.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    4. Re:Well... by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't take this personally, 'cause it really isn't - and I know I'll be modded down for this - but I must say this story has the greatest concentration of the lamest "Informative" posts, ever.

      I'm thinking that it's maybe just a gigantic troll, and the submitter is LOLling his ass off as I post this. Timothy maybe in on the joke.

      And you know what? THIS is the kind of shit that should be submitted on April Fool's Day.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:Well... by azav · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What if someone has forged the BofA email headers? Or the Yahoo headers. I've seen this all too often.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    6. Re:Well... by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spamming is not, and has never been a freedom of speech issue; it's a property rights issue. The spammer has no more right to use my equipment than they do to spray paint their message on my garage door.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Well... by Gonoff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not from the US and cannot see a connection between freedom of speech for people and businesses having the right to say or do anything at all.

      Freedom of speech for people is undoubtedly a cornerstone of a free (civilised) society. What has that got to do with the right of even a legitimate company to say something? Freedom for business is a good thing to but as soon as they trample on freedoms of human beings, that should be very closely examined!

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    8. Re:Well... by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First Amendment be damned...

      Yes, yes, their right to speak does not obligate you to listen, but by outlawing all unsolicited emails from businesses you actually do violate the First Amendment. It is a tricky dilemma and has little to do with "businesses owning government" -- if anything, their having the government's ear helps prevent the kind of over-reaction you are showing...

      Actually, I think you are wrong. That's not 1st Amendment protected behavior.

      I can grab a soapbox and proceed to a public area and start to give my speech about how the squirrels are really intelligent and are conspiring to take over the Earth and force us into slavery in their nut mines.

      That is a public area and I was just speaking.

      I cannot do the same thing on private property for obvious reasons.

      There really is no difference between email and regular paper mail conceptually. It is the same thing, and has associated costs with the infrastructure and delivery. Both "boxes" can be considered real property. In this case of email, 99.999999% (in some cases, 100%) of its traffic occurs over private property.

      I don't think the 1st Amendment protects any businesses behavior of placing onto your property whatever they wish. Of course, it's undesirable and understood that nobody wants it. I have a hard time believing it is a fundamental right.

      If that were true, conceptually it would be possible for me to legally and literally pile thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pieces of paper at your doorstep supporting my own political/religious beliefs and advertising my products and services. I know you will say, "but that is harassment and not reasonable". Fair enough, but why? I would propose it is because I am causing you damage at some point? Okay. Where do we draw the lines? Both junk mail and spam are seriously draining our resources, at many levels. That is clearly damaging to many people.

      At some point we have to be reasonable and see that is not something we are trying to protect with our Constitution.

      You mention we have no obligation to listen, yet we are forced to "listen" to all this crap by letting the junk mail into our mailboxes and the spam into our Inboxes. I think it is perfectly reasonable, and in no way an over reaction, to limit businesses (which are not people anyways) to sending physical mail and email only to existing business relationships. At least at that point there is mutual consent.

      I think you have the 1st Amendment, speech, and the written word confused. Yes, the Constitution is designed to protect our rights to express ourselves with the written word as well as speech. However, it does not give us universal rights on the distribution of those written words.

      If I put a collection of my written words available in a single place (a website for example) I think I should be Constitutionally protected while doing so. If I start "throwing" those collections of written words willy nilly around the U.S without any consideration of what private property they trespass and ultimately land upon, I think at that point I am out of line.

    9. Re:Well... by FrostPaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simple... even from a "brute force" zombie spammer's perspective, having a list of guaranteed active mail addresses that are actually read will result in a lot more hits than misses. By opting out to non solicited spam from a "hostile" source and confirming the account is active and has someone actually reading junkmail in the process, one only makes the spammers' job easier. Also, your email address increases in value when being sold inbetween spammers. Effectively, you make the A-list among spammers. Having an opt out bit to catch the most naive users would be an investment so to speak. Then again, as you say not all spammers do this.

    10. Re:Well... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 5, Informative

      RE: Well... (Score 5, Informative)

      Don't take this personally, 'cause it really isn't - and I know I'll be modded down for this - but I must say this story has the greatest concentration of the lamest "Informative" posts, ever.
      ...

      My ironimeter just exploded.

      Sorry... couldn't resist.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    11. Re:Well... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 5, Informative

      What are the moderators smoking (see parent score)?

      --
      $ make available
    12. Re:Well... by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hey, I'm a prison snitch. Mod me informative too!

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  2. Yes by darpo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is my email address being harvested when I opt out?

    Yes.

    1. Re:Yes by Moblaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't even need to opt out -- if you leave graphical preview options turned on in your html, the spammers can use uniquely named graphical images to confirm your email address is valid.

    2. Re:Yes by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Informative

      True enough. Luckily, Gmail's default is to not download images. And in fact, I think you can't even override that global default - only on a sende-by-sender basis.

      Which is great.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:Yes by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Was I a fool for opting out?

      Yes.

    4. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google invented Al Gore!

  3. Validation by cstdenis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've validated to the spammers that your email address is being actively read, and that you actually READ spam. You have confirmed to them that you are an excellent use of their resources.

    --
    1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
    1. Re:Validation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Captain Kirk? Is that you??

    2. Re:Validation by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      YOU seem TO like BOLD text. May I introduce YOU to a NEW way OF typing? Let your WORDS speak FOR themSELVES; bold text JUST makes you SOUND annoying.

      Or PERHAPS he should try WRITING scripts for SUPERHERO COMICS.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  4. In other news, water: still wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I used to avoid water but recently I have been using the shower. Now I get more wet than ever, especially of the makes-my-skin-pruny (and related) types. The latter has gone from almost none to one or more a week. Was I a fool for taking a shower? Is my skin being harvested when I shower? Has anybody had a similar experience?

    1. Re:In other news, water: still wet by Bieeanda · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, you poor fool, yes. Why else do you think that every other nerd and geek knows better than to shave, shower, or wear clean clothes?

  5. DUH? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    DUH? Of course, "opting" out increases spam...

    If spammers will not honour our private property rights by stealing our bandwidth and mail server ressources, what makes you think that they will honour requests not to be spammed again?

    Worse, "opting" out confirms that the e-mail address the spam has be sent to is valid!!!

    You never opt-out of spams, you LART their upstreams until they have no more connectivity.

    1. Re:DUH? by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If spammers will not honour our private property rights by stealing our bandwidth and mail server ressources, what makes you think that they will honour requests not to be spammed again?

      Have you *lost* your bandwidth or mail server resources? I'm not trying to justify spam, but let's not use incendiary terms when there exists a perfectly valid alternative: bandwidth-and-mail-server-infringement. Resource sharing is the future; the ultimate goal of cloud computing. Instead of trying to stamp out spam, people need to change their reading models. It's not our job to support obsolete reading models, and it's arrogant to expect us to.

  6. Is this some sort of joke? by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this guy serious?

    I would give him the benefit of the doubt if this was circa 1997. But it's 2009, and even the birds on the trees are singing the tune "who tries to opt-out on spam is a fucking fool and deserves to have his e-mail harvested to hell and back". Or some such tune.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Is this some sort of joke? by cbrocious · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's a bird virus going around. They used to sing in a way that let me know what was going on, but now even the birds are pushing g3n3r1c c14l15.

      --
      Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
  7. I have had the exact same experience. by zzottt · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have had the exact same experience with my hotmail account a few years ago. I would get almost no spam. This was great for years with that account. Then one day I got a few spam. I tried the "opt out" option and almost moments later I saw multiple spams coming in. I have not tried it with my gmail or any other account for fear that my spam will double.

  8. Did you ask this under you own name? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or are you trying to make one of your friends/enemies look dumb?

  9. A better question by HunterZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A better Ask Slashdot question would have been: "how can I forge bounce messages so that they think my email address is invalid?"

    --
    Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
    1. Re:A better question by Pie+Pan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Greylisting.

      http://www.greylisting.org/

      My mail server uses that along with a trained CRM114 spam filter, and I get virtually no spam. Since most spam is sent from zombie machines, it will reject e-mail from unknown servers with a "try again later" response. Valid MTA's will re-send the message, but infected machines sending spam usually won't or can't re-send the message. Servers that DO re-send get 'greylisted' and their messages get through first time after that.

      It's a little annoying having up to an hour or two delay on some e-mails, but if there's something I need urgently, I'll just get it sent to Gmail.

  10. Just in case... by Linker3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Has anyone explained why opting out is a bad idea yet?

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  11. front page? really? or any page? it's 2009! by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How on earth did this make any part of slashdot at all?

  12. not just that by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not just that, but you confirmed to the spammers that you were stupid enough to believe something they said. Consider the advice of the great philosophers Mr. T and Nelson.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  13. Re:A Contest? by unhooked · · Score: 5, Funny

    No no no, it's not a contest at all.
    The lame stories are being posted to make you complain, thus verifying who actually reads the articles so they can make a list and sell it.

  14. Spam vs. unwanted e-mail by snowwrestler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who does responsible e-mail marketing, please let me make a distinction between that and spamming.

    If you are getting notices to enhance your johnson or "Che@p drug$" or whatever, DO NOT use the "opt out" link. It confirms your e-mail address is functional. In fact don't open them at all. Report them as spam and help your ISP improve their filters.

    HOWEVER, if you are receiving e-mail marketing you just don't want anymore--like say the daily deal e-mail from Expedia*--please use the opt-out link to cancel your subscription. Deleting them won't stop the flow, and marking them as spam hurts deliverability reputation, making it harder to get them to people who actually want them.

    Perhaps I'll get modded down for saying this, but e-mail marketing can be done responsibly and is a big part of many legitimate businesses. I think this sometimes gets lost in the War On Spam.

    * I don't work for them, this is just an example of an e-mail marketing that I know I get.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Spam vs. unwanted e-mail by Raffaello · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sort of empty distinction is why can-spam and other laws are completely ineffective - because legislators want to make a legal distinction between "good" spammers, like expedia, and "bad" spammers, like chinese viagra vendors.

      There is no such distinction. If a user did not actively request commercial email from a specific commercial entity (not their affiliates or others they sell addresses to), then that email is unsolicited commercial email and should be an unambiguous criminal offense.

  15. If it is just aggressive by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    marketing from an otherwise legitimate company, opting out will work, but for spammers it just makes things worse. Spammers count on two things, that they just need a tiny percentage to respond to their solicitations, and that the rest of us will ignore it. Once a year I make a point of researching the complete header of spam and reporting them to their ISP and any law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction. They are engaged in fraud in the traditional sense of the term, so are violating existing laws. They are counting on the rest of us to just delete them and not lodge a complaint.

  16. Look at the bright side ... by oldspewey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... now you can take up scambaiting as a sport.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  17. Different classes of spam by S-100 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a 10+ year old email account that was used all over the place, and now has the dubious honor of getting well over 100 spams per day (unfiltered). I've recently applied the zen.spamhaus.org RBL and a short list of blacklisted domains and keywords (sorry, Mr. Hoodia, I won't be getting your emails). Applying a proper SPF record to the domain has drastically cut down on the non-deliverable backscatter. A couple of times a year, my email address was used as the reply-to address for an entire block of spam and in those cases I'd get hundreds of bounce messages in the course of a few hours. Now it's down to a few now and then, usually from hotmail.

    As for opt-out, the remaining spam comes from what look like legit marketers. I definitely did NOT opt in to their list, but once one crooked spammer sells his "double opt-in email list", you're on it for good. The legit marketers send their mail from different domains, but if the spam has a good SPF record, and the opt-out notice goes to the marketing company and not the domain of the sender, I click on the opt-out link. Incoming mail that fails SPF is rejected. No SPF record and I don't opt out. And after a few weeks, I see a negligible amount of repeat email from these marketers, and overall the incoming spam has been reduced over 90%.