Thursday, September 26, 2002 you wrote:
DB> More often than not, the web site customer is culpable. IOW, they
DB> were either the spammer in disguise or they commissioned the spam,
DB> in order to drive traffic to their web site -- usually to sell
DB> something.
I have not had one singe case reported to me from Spam-Cop where
that was true. In every case an individual totally unrelated to
the web site sent a message to someone else (also unrelated to the
web site) which contained a url referencing one of our client's
web sites. The web site operator had nothing to do with the e-mail
and we certainly had nothing to do with the e-mail.
Some of these have just been malicious attempts to get the web
site in trouble usually because of some bias against a particular
religious or political viewpoint apparently.
As far as I am concerned it makes the efforts we take to prevent
spam from issuing from our servers all the more trivial. I'm sure
a lot of people know what I mean, too. You work hard, spend lots
of money, investigate every case, all to prevent spam -- and then
you are accused because someone chose to act in a malicious
manner. And it is beyond your control.
DB> For that reason, we extensively use the Declude filter file to
DB> list those URLs, as well as telephone numbers and similar unique
DB> info in the spam. It works.
I just don't understand the logic in punishing the innocent for
the sins of guilty.
DB> Under our terms of service and acceptable conduct policies, we'll
DB> cancel a customer with a spamvertised web site. We've only had to
DB> do it once and we noticed that the customer has changed hosts a
DB> couple of more times since - wonder why . . .
The point is that these urls had nothing to do with spam except
they were included in a message that was reported to spam-cop. In
a way it is the same thing that is happening to spam-cop by
spammers who use their url in spam. Except that every case that
has been reported to me by spam-cop is from one individual to
another - not spammers.
That pretty much proves the point I'm making. You are punishing a
completely innocent party for something they did not do and had no
control over.
As much as I detest spam and as hard as I work to keep it from my
clients and certainly to keep it from originating from my servers I
feel strongly that the innocent have to be protected.
I am dismayed that people are so willing to ignore the plight of the
innocent in order to get the guilty.
Terry Fritts
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
