>-----Original Message----- >From: Nick Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 6:54 AM >To: Killer Bs Discussion >Subject: Re: SpamAdaption > >Trent Shipley wrote: > >> Nick, is this what you are saying? >> >> Spammer compromises customer's computer (actually many customers' >> computers, preferably through a Trojan EULA that makes the >whole thing legal). > >No, not legal. Spam isn't legal! > >> I really do not get that angry with spammers. They are just >rational >> entrepreneurs. > >Bleah. If spamming isn't unethical, what is? I have to disagree. Microsoft has proposed many different solutions to solving the spam problem. Its is largely the corporate world that balks at the use of these solutions, because they utilize it so frequently. Microsoft has seen fierce resistance against limiting spam, from the largest of corporations. But really, here is the crux of the whole problem, which I have stated many times before on this list. Spammers are successful because people make it profitable. People do respond and buy into the spammers message. It may take 10 million messages to get one sale, but they do get it. The spammers are providing a service to people who are selling something, and some dumb f&*^er out there is buying his stuff.
However, my complaint now is largely the spyware and adware that is plagueing the Internet. Microsoft, and most anti-virus companies were caught unaware of the destructiveness of these programs. At least Microsoft is now offering a beta of some pretty good anti-spyware software. Microsoft has also challenged its developers to look at why spyware is able to penetrate systems through normal software install methods. This cannot be done with administrative rights on the computer. The challenge to the developers is for them to learn how to run with limited rights, which provides protection, while still getting work done. I would expect to see some changes in the next version of Windows that allows greater freedom of use on local workstations while protecting the system by not allowing full administrative access at the shell level. Spam is technically only illegal in a few states. There is no mechanism to stop spam from out of the country. Perhaps better laws would make it illegal to purchase goods and services from spam ad's, but then you are inpinging on corporate america, who is by far the worst culprit of spam email messages. While they call it "opting in", they use the same tricks of the trade to get the mail to your box, track your behavior, and get the successful sale. So you cannot stop spam by any measure because it is a successful marketing tool. You either inhibit legit spam in the process which would not be tolerated by corporations, or you stop reading email. Corporate America has made it clear that they do not want restrictions on the flow of their spam. Since there is no good alternative to email yet, we will have to live with it, not because spammers are evil, but because they and their customers are so good at making money. I know that much of the bad spam would be considered vulgar, and much of the bad spam is really scamware. One can either not read email, or they can live with constitutionally protected freedom of expression. Sure that there is a lot of scamming going on, but scamming is illegal, whether one uses a phone, tv ad, newspaper ad, web site, or person to person selling goods in back alleys. This hatred of spam is really just a response of trying to "kill the messenger". Nick, perhaps the solution is to use the technology to "paint scarlet letters" on people who respond and buy goods via spam. These are the people that deserve scorn. Forget the spammers, fight the consumers! Nerd From Hell > >Nick > >_______________________________________________ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
