| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Fighting image spamFighting image spamPosted Aug 24, 2006 8:16 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)Parent article: Fighting image spam Filtering is an endless arms-race. It don't think it can be won. I personally think the solution will be some sort of reputation-system, preferably web-of-trust like. All you'd need would be people signing their email-messages, and a repository storing signed statements to the effect that certain public-keys belong to non-spammers.
(Log in to post comments)
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 24, 2006 8:50 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] All you'd need would be people signing their email-messages, and a repository storing signed statements to the effect that certain public-keys belong to non-spammers.I'm afraid this wouldn't work for addresses like lwn@lwn.net, which has to be able to receive e-mails from any e-mail addresses - and addresses like these get the most spam.
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 24, 2006 9:33 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] Such addresses, actually, shouldn't exist. What's wrong with a web-form for sending comments? The latter is much easier to protect from spam.
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 24, 2006 9:52 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Such addresses, actually, shouldn't exist. What's wrong with a web-form for sending comments?Imagine that you're responsible for the PR of a (linux-specific) project. There is a new release, so you type up an announcement. Today you'll probably have a list in your addressbook containing addresses like pr@lwn.net so you simply send your announcement to these addresses. Imagine if you wouldn't have this list, instead you'd have a folder in your browser's bookmarks containing the "Press Release Forms" of all relevant publications and you'd have to copy&paste the announcement into these forms one by one. It wouldn't be nice.
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 24, 2006 10:02 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] 1. Some hard work (like copy&paste and then clicking on a button) is a nice addition to the air-bubbling activities PR agents are doing most of the time.2. In most of the cases, either or both of the two parties participating in PR announces (the sender & the receipinet) get some cash as a result. A tiny part of it probably justifies fighting the spam if email submission is a must (which I'm still not sure about). 3. PR is the last thing I'd worry about. The lwn's email you mentioned initially as an example is actually used for any comment submission, which in 99.99% are not PR, I believe.
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 24, 2006 17:21 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] It was an *example*. There are thousands of others just like it. And, you appear to hold PR people in very low esteem.
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 24, 2006 19:35 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > It was an *example*.
Give a better one then.
> And, you appear to hold PR people in very low esteem.
Yes, I do. At least those who tend to post their releases to a huge amount of emails (otherwise doing it from web forms wouldn't take too much time anyway).
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 24, 2006 10:04 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (guest, #5474) [Link] You seem to speak as someone who doesn't have an open contact form on their site ...
Rich.
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 24, 2006 10:13 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] Believe me, I do. Yes, web forms get spammed, too. But fighting this spam is much easier. In the worst possible case, just pipe the form output through SA.
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 25, 2006 13:26 UTC (Fri) by kpower (subscriber, #37136) [Link] Removing one easily accessible open method of communication just moves the spam target elsewhere. If it's not email, then its a web form, an IM address or other method. The digital methods are all nearly alike in their ease to spam, and will likely remain that way into the near future.
Business requires open, easy to use communication to survive. Without a means for the outside world to communicat to and with, a business will whither and die. This is different than a single private individual outside of a business context, who doesn't need the same type of openness in communication.
A variety of open communication channels are available, all are subjected to sapm (at least in the USA). Email, web forms, web forums, news groups, IM, telephone, fax, postal, all receive spam in greater or less quantities.
It's not just PR, but Sales, prospective clients, prospective employees and others that rely upon this open channel. Without the open channel, how will the communication be initiated?
Unprofitable? Posted Aug 25, 2006 5:18 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] I'm skeptical of reputation systems, but if one could be effectively deployed and only addresses like lwn@lwn.net could receive spam wouldn't spam become unprofitable?
Fighting image spam Posted Aug 25, 2006 21:21 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] This is why, ideally, trust-based controls would work in tandem with economics-based controls. Senders you don't trust as much have to pay more (possibly with a refund if they prove trustworthy). Unfortunately, we're a long way from having either one on a wide scale.
The ultimate spam solution Posted Aug 26, 2006 21:16 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I guess I don't know the technique you're alluding to. It's not clear to me how I would get someone to vouch for me as a non-spammer.I don't think it's really possible to determine adequately whether a person is a spammer, and more to the point, whether a piece of email came from a spammer, so I think the ultimate solution will be financial accounting. If we can require payment to send an email into the Internet, the spammers and hammers will sort themselves out. As will the people with worm-infected computers. Remember that what makes a spam annoying to you is the same thing that makes it worthless to the sender: you're not interested. If the spam cost the sender as much to send as it costs you to read/delete it, it wouldn't get sent. But both plans assume it's possible to install a whole new system of email on the Internet. Looking at the failures so far, I'm starting to doubt we'll ever see a systemic fix to spam. Something like filtering that can be done one mailbox at a time may be our only hope.
|
|
||||||||||||