| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Spam blocking with greylistingSpam blocking with greylistingPosted Jun 26, 2003 10:10 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581)Parent article: Spam blocking with greylisting Problem - all the extra retries might cause some mail relays to collapse. Especially once the spammers cotton on & begin retrying themselves - after all most of the stuff is undeliverable (sent to non-existent addresses). What's needed to fight spam are international treaties agreeing that unsolicited commercial mailings are unlawful and a universal acceptance that an alleged 'net criminal can be tried in his/her own state using evidence collected outside that state.
(Log in to post comments)
Spam blocking with law Posted Jun 27, 2003 16:48 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I agree that treaties and other laws are needed; technology just won't solve the problem.But I don't want any law that says all unsolicited commercial mails are bad. I don't want legislators handling the tricky definition of unsolicited commercial mail. Neither unsolicited nor commercial are bad things. "Unwanted email" is what we're going for. The right solution would be to use the free market. The laws should say bulk mailers have to pay into a fund for every email, and the laws should provide the means to enforce the payments. This would make it impractical for someone to send a million emails when only 10 people will buy the product. But it allows properly targeted solicitation. Properly targetted means there is a significant chance that the recipient will want the product being sold, which means he profits from receiving the email.
Spam blocking with law and technology Posted Jun 28, 2003 11:37 UTC (Sat) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Yes having a microtransaction supported mail system could be very useful, but this goes way beyond SMTP - more a new kind of messaging service altogether. Introducing microtransactions is very difficult, partly due to the psychological preference people seem to have for unmetered but known fixed monthly bills. When microtransactions become a reality, in my understanding this is likely to be based on a similar model to the highly decentralised one I am researching.An area where the law could have useful impact would be by agreeing large fines and bounties obtainable by those bringing prosecutions and evidence anywhere the spammer is based against a non-controversial definition of the worst kind of spam, i.e. the kind deliberately using outgoing addresses involving domains belonging to innocent third parties (forged letterheads in other words). This is a form of criminal deception which prevents use of the reply button with a complaint being effective. By making this criminal deception very expensive it then becomes much easier to tune technological measures using origin blacklists against mass mailers who don't use confirmed opt-in list management methods or proper complaint handling.
Spam blocking with law Posted Jun 30, 2003 13:40 UTC (Mon) by mwilck (guest, #1966) [Link] I don't want legislators handling the tricky definition of unsolicited commercial mailWhat is so tricky about that? "Unsolicited" is absolutely clear - everything the recipient didn't ask for. "Commercial" shouldn't be so hard to define either. The right solution would be to use the free market. The solution you propose has nothing to do with the free market. It is just an different form of legislation. This can be very compared well to environmental legislation (instead of forbidding to dump waste, we assign a cost to it). This may or may not work better than a simple ban. In any case, the assigned cost is determined by legislation, not by the market. "Proper targeting" requires you to have detailed knowledge about the recipient's interests (in your words, to know what sort of unsolicited commercial email the recipient would not consider "unwanted"). If that knowledge comes from person himself signing up to your newsletter - fine, it's not unsolicited, it's not spam. Otherwise, you could hardly have gathered that knowledge by legal means, at least not in Europe, because such information is considered private and confidential - you cannot have it unless the person himself has given it to you.
Spam blocking with law Posted Jul 3, 2003 20:54 UTC (Thu) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] "Unsolicited" is absolutely clear - everything the recipient didn't ask for. And that's exactly why it's so hard to define. This assumes you know what you asked for. When you are wisiting web site and it's asking you "Do you want to get our offers daily by e-mail?" and then when you refuse it asks you the same "Are you really sure you want to avoid getting our offers?" it's easy to click Yes or No two times and "ask" for mail. Other thing: what about bug report or help requests ? I'm sometimes get requests for help from some peoples I never knew - they just happen to have the same problems with mars_nwe and/or SONY VAIO. I'm pretty sure I never asked for such mail but it's hardly can be named "spam". So everything is far from black/white picture...
|
|
||||||||||||