Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 23:55 -0600, Randomthots a écrit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 11:51 -0600, Randomthots a écrit : > > > > > >>Q: Why is spam usually in html format? > > > > > > A1. Because advertisers like flashy colours. > > Because it's effective.
If you call carpet-bombing effective, it is. Retail paper flyers are the true spam ancestors. > > With flashy effects you > > don't have to bother about meaningful messages and correct grammar. > > Obviously you've never worked in retail sales. Retail salesmen are also very good at inventing stuff which never was in any grammar book. But spammers are worse. > > A3. Because one can use 1×1 pixel images embedded in the html to detect > > which message is actually read, and thus validate address lists > > See? They understand tech. They understand tech as much as script-kiddies, ie they're very good at parroting general recipes without having any real understanding. This particular exploit (web bugs) has escaped most of them so far. > > A4. Because in HTML you can cloak links and display adresses different > > from the ones you're actually linking to > > > > A5. Because the HTML format is so convoluted you have many ways to hide > > your spam content from spam filters, which can not integrate a full HTML > > engine to detect what the user will actually see displayed. So it's a > > filtering pass-through > > Which squarely implicates the W3C as co-conspirators. After all, they > wrote the standard. The part that seem to escape you is the W3C didn't wrote a message format standard. They're no more responsible for the mess than car makers when someone blames them for making very poor boats. > > A6. because spammers don't care about standards or conventions, and > > abuse them routinely > Precisely which standard or convention are they abusing by the use of > html-mail? The mail conventions that mandate using formats people can decode easily (ie without a full-blown HTML engine knowing all ie/outlook quirks) > Politeness? > > Look. Spam is *not* a technological problem and treating it as such only > creates an escalating cold war. Spam is an *economic* problem, and the > cause can be summed up in two words: free email. It's the tragedy of the > commons updated to the 21st century. Sure, and windows has no security problems and the answer to virii is Bill Gates offering bounties for virus writers. > The solution is a "fee-bate" system. Each email message should require a > micro-payment of, say, $0.25 -- basically postage. This fails in the same trap as SPF : as long as you got zombie networks the spammers won't care. They're not the ones charged. (but this could be solved by getting rid of windows). Plus the cost of printing paper flyers has not stopped businesses from stuffing my mailbox with them so far. The solution is generalised digital signatures with mandatory passwords so one can not sent a message from a computer without typing a password at the start of its session. -- Nicolas Mailhot
