On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:58:55 -0800
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 majority of spam is not domestic. The worst US based offenders rely on
it, and will simply move operations. Another big problem that I can think of is false
impressions of spam recipients... I get numerous complaints every week from people
who think the address in the reply-too of the email is actually associated with the
spam. Imagine if all these complaints were actually lawsuits.
> 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.
Sure, but obviously ineffective in the long view. Policing a couple networks
of one source of spam is nice, but a respectable number of networks policing ALL
sources of spam and encouraging society as a whole to reject them is a lot nicer.
> > 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?
It will take MANY ISPs and companies participating. Or a few big ones like
Yahoo or something. Also, it doesn't need to upset spammers so much as stop support
of them. As fewer and fewer companies are willing to support them because it hurts
their business, they will begin to congregate much thicker where they can still
operate. As this happens, fewer networks will need to be filtered, so more companies
will be willing to do the filtering. As more companies filter and fewer networks
spam, eventually almost everyone will filter and almost nobody will spam because it is
ineffective. If it takes a few upset customers to kick off this chain of events, BFD.
If this is a common enough practice, they should understand what is going on. Spam
filters already kill a lot of legit mail with no promise of a future without spam.
People still pay for them. This would be a temporary inconvenience if done right, and
actually provide a possible solution.
Jeez. Shots hurt; we still pay for our kids to have them because they MIGHT
prevent problems. This is not unlike that logic. Another analogy is chemo. It sucks
to have, but may cure you of a much worse affliction. Spam is worse than a few
rejected emails.
TimH
_______________________________________________
Eug-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
