OT: Spam

[Roedy Green]

(e-mail address removed)3.com

the problem with this is SOMEBODY has to decode it for use, (and may
not bother). If they do, then it is lying around in plaintext just
waiting for Sven to harvest in anyone's mailbox who communicates with
you.

One of the great charms of email addresses is they could be permanent,
even if you moved or changed ISPs. Now the spam brats have destroyed
that. Your main defense it to change your email address and then only
tell selected people.

I think the solution is to charge 50 cents to send an email, the money
going to the receiver's account. For most people, it would balance
out. If you were clever, you could get spammers to pay your rent for
you by spamming to an account you never read. Fitting revenge.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:40:47 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"



the problem with this is SOMEBODY has to decode it for use, (and may
not bother). If they do, then it is lying around in plaintext just
waiting for Sven to harvest in anyone's mailbox who communicates with
you.

Things getting harvested out of the mailboxes themselves is not that common.
But it /is/ possible, they're called viruses, which is one of the reasons I
suggest a magic word in the subject.

One of the great charms of email addresses is they could be permanent,
even if you moved or changed ISPs. Now the spam brats have destroyed
that. Your main defense it to change your email address and then only
tell selected people.

I think the solution is to charge 50 cents to send an email, the money
going to the receiver's account. For most people, it would balance
out. If you were clever, you could get spammers to pay your rent for
you by spamming to an account you never read. Fitting revenge.

Fair enough. $.50 means I might not ever get another dumb joke again. What
a filter! The only jokes I'd get would be the ones so damn funny that it
was worth paying half a buck to get it to me.

What's horrible is that the number of all emails that are spam is thought to
be currently around 40%, and will exceed 50% sometime in 2004.

The /count/, not the data size, FWIW.

 

[Roedy Green]

Fair enough. $.50 means I might not ever get another dumb joke again. What
a filter! The only jokes I'd get would be the ones so damn funny that it
was worth paying half a buck to get it to me.

If you SHARE jokes with friends, it evens out and the net cost is 0.

There would come a moral obligation to return a joke. If you didn't,
people might finally get hint you don't find those saccharine
jokes/stories amusing.

 

[Dave Glasser]

GMT in comp.lang.java.programmer:

I think the solution is to charge 50 cents to send an email, the money
going to the receiver's account. For most people, it would balance
out. If you were clever, you could get spammers to pay your rent for
you by spamming to an account you never read. Fitting revenge.

This idea has been bandied about before, and it probably wouldn't take
a 50 cent charge to dry up a lot of spam. Even a penny would probably
do the trick. The reason spam is economically viable is because the
marginal cost of sending a single spam is essentially zero. If you
send out a million spams and sell only one stupid mini RC car or one
bottle of bogus penis enlargement pills, you're still ahead. At a
penny per, however, a million non-bounced spam emails would cost
$10,000.

Ideally, users could set up whitelists of known senders who could send
them stuff for free. (That would be needed for mailing lists.)

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

GMT in comp.lang.java.programmer:



This idea has been bandied about before, and it probably wouldn't take
a 50 cent charge to dry up a lot of spam. Even a penny would probably
do the trick.

Hard to say.

But in any case, the true solution is to make the @#$%ing practice illegal.
Then even a $100 fine, multiplied by the gobs of complaints, would shut
someone down so fast that they would never attempt it again.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

....
Hard to say.

But in any case, the true solution is to make the @#$%ing practice

illegal.

Illegal ..where? In the US? What about Australia..
Finland, Sweden, the Canary Islands, Tanu Tuva, the
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO,..

Besides, more laws -> more lawlessness. (shrugs)

 

[brougham5]

the true solution is to make the @#$%ing practice illegal.
Then even a $100 fine, multiplied by the gobs of complaints, would shut
someone down so fast that they would never attempt it again.

Making spam illegal won't do anything to solve the problem of getting spam
generated outside the country in which you reside.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

I think the solution is to charge 50 cents to send an email, the money
going to the receiver's account. For most people, it would balance
out. If you were clever, you could get spammers to pay your rent for
you by spamming to an account you never read. Fitting revenge.

Very old, very bad idea.

It would instantly kill all mailing lists if implemented, it would be nigh
impossible to enforce, and spammers would find ways to circumvent it.

 

[Thomas Schodt]

On the topic of Spam.
An article in the register, category: Politicians/Humor.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/33661.html

 

[Tim Ward]

Scott Hightower <[email protected]> coughed up the following:

Bah. The worry of getting to me is the burden of the sender, not me.

No, it's your problem. If you post a question with a false return address
and someone, trying to be helpful, attempts to email you a reply which, if
you were to receive it, would be of value to you, and it bounces, then they
are exceedingly unlikely to bother to try again. You've just lost some
information, advice, customers, whatever.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Very old, very bad idea.

It would instantly kill all mailing lists if implemented, it would be
nigh impossible to enforce, and spammers would find ways to
circumvent it.

Fine by me. Fine by me. And, yeah, probably.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

"Thomas G. Marshall"


No, it's your problem. If you post a question with a false return
address and someone, trying to be helpful, attempts to email you a
reply which, if you were to receive it, would be of value to you, and
it bounces, then they are exceedingly unlikely to bother to try
again. You've just lost some information, advice, customers, whatever.

Then why not give my home adress? If someone hears of me, and wants to meet
me in person, and they cannot, then I've just lost some information, advice,
customers, whatever? Pbbbsttttt ''''''''''

Bah. For critical stuff they can always post a "hey, Tom, contact me". But
in any case, my current email obfuscation works well. But it need not: I
often think that the (e-mail address removed) guys are the brightest of all.

 

[J French]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:39:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"

Bah. For critical stuff they can always post a "hey, Tom, contact me". But
in any case, my current email obfuscation works well. But it need not: I
often think that the (e-mail address removed) guys are the brightest of all.

In my case, not that bright

First I used my real Email address - spam came in
Then I obfuscated it - spammers de-obfuscated
Finally I went for anonimity

I use Mailwasher, which has a list of known DNS Blacklist Servers

About 80% of the junk I get comes from those servers
- if it were not for the geographical problems, I would visit those
servers with a few gallons of petrol

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:39:46 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"



In my case, not that bright

First I used my real Email address - spam came in
Then I obfuscated it - spammers de-obfuscated
Finally I went for anonimity

I use Mailwasher, which has a list of known DNS Blacklist Servers

About 80% of the junk I get comes from those servers
- if it were not for the geographical problems, I would visit those
servers with a few gallons of petrol

Clearly a european or australian. You mean "gasoline" ? lol.

I hear you loud and clear: however you may wish to attempt a "white-list"
mechanism instead.

Thomas

 

[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNo longer subscribing sea]

That's very enrichening and I love it!

If you SHARE jokes with friends, it evens out and the net cost is 0.

There would come a moral obligation to return a joke. If you didn't,
people might finally get hint you don't find those saccharine
jokes/stories amusing.