On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:57:05PM -0800, Tim Howe wrote: > Lets see... If the US makes a law to outlaw spam, who actually thinks > this would stop any spam? How are you going to go after companies that > spam from outside of the US? How do you define spam?
Any? Quite a bit would be stopped, I think, if US companies were required to stop emailing me to sell their products when they are told to do so. > The best idea I have heard so far is to refuse email from networks that > are known to be spam havens. This idea seems to make people really > upset, but I can't understand why. If you are willing to take such a > ridiculous (and futile) step such as making laws, then why does this > seem like such an outlandish idea? It would probably only require a > very small percentage of servers doing something like this to make a > major difference. Imagine if 25% of the people you tried to email to > couldn't receive your email because your provider allowed (or at least > did nothing relevant to stop) spammers to exist on their network. You > wouldn't complain or switch providers? Imagine if NOT being in > something like the SPEWS database was an incentive for people to use > your service. Actually, RoadRunner has started probing servers that send them mail about once a day.. If your server is an open relay, you're blacklisted for a time and the 550 will tell why. This is a perfectly valid response, IMO. > This is a market economy, right? So far the market supports spammers. > If we want to get rid of spam, then the market must become hostile to > it. This is obvious. Now: Will rejecting mail from domains with a spam problem upset your customers more than it will upset the spammers? -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Here we go again <Knghtbrd> aggh! <Knghtbrd> MAKE IT STOP! <Knghtbrd> MAKE IT STOP!!
msg12984/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
