The problem here is that SPAM is a huge problem for ISPs. You can try to argue that it's the user's fault for getting spam in the first place, but you're not going to get anywhere with that. SPAM eats up tons of bandwidth, results in thousands of customer service calls, and causes dissatisfaction all the way around.
As mentioned here already, it's never going to go away as long as we keep using SMTP for sending email. The protocol is inherently flawed, I often liken it to snail mail. When you get an envelope in your mailbox, there's no way to tell where it actually came from. There's a return address on it, but there's no means of actually checking that return address out to see if it's true. SMTP works the same way, it's easy to spoof the sender of a message. SPAM is also still profitable because apparently some people are still suckered in by some of the messages. It costs nothing to send, and therefore a 0.00000001% return rate on a billion emails out will give someone a profit. That's why ISPs have had to take it upon themselves to install their own spam filters. Users WILL get suckered in by phishing attacks, or have their mailboxes flooded by unwanted email. The ISP will install filters it for its own reasons, chief among them is keeping the customer happy. Until you see customers demanding that ISPs take their SPAM filters offline, that's not going to change. Now, as far as your problem with sending an email with nothing in the body but a numeric hyperlink, and that getting rejected... there's a very good chance that your mail was detected as SPAM because they are running a piece of Open Source Software called SPAMASSASSIN. One of the aspects that will increase the score it uses to determine the likelihood of SPAM is the existence of a URL with a numeric IP address. If you don't like that, there's nothing in the ISP's agreements that require you to use their own mail servers. You are free to rent your own server and run your own mail account that way. willhill wrote: > Scott, what you said is both insulting and wrong. I understand the issues > but > don't agree with you. It is a matter of principles and I'm not ashamed of > that. > > Your dismissal of principles is more disturbing than your insult. Technology > use should be guided by principles rather than the converse. The whole point > of the exercise is to overcome limitations and improve the world for people. > All of us must exercise moral judgment or we can be used as tools and do > things we should be ashamed of. > > I think I've got both technical and moral issues right on this one. From a > technical perspective, dumb networks are more efficient than "smart" ones. > >From a moral perspective, censorship is wrong and censorship to support > monopoly software shortcomings is doing something wrong for the sake of > something bad. You can argue that this is the way things are but that only > proves that things are not as they should be. There's no difference between > the bits I'm uploading here in this email and the same bits sent by my own > mail or web server. It's wrong for Cox to keep me from running either and > that's one aim of their goofey email filter. The problem you have pointed > out is not caused by people like me, it's caused by an OS that's so easy to > abuse that it's responsible for the majority of the world's spam. As moral > implementers of technology, we owe it to people to recommend software that > works and eliminate software that creates problems. Doing otherwise only > makes things harder. > > Networks, like software, are better when they don't have owners. Information > is always better when you can get it from the source. Network owners have a > tendency to get in the way and exploit their position. The most egregious > example of that is state controlled, broadcast media. The more control we > allow network owners to exert, the less good networks will do. > > On Tuesday 29 January 2008 11:22 pm, Scott Harney wrote: > >> You either a) don't understand what I am saying or b) don't want to >> understand what I'm saying because it conflicts with your beliefs in some >> way. Whatever. >> > > >> The various other readers of the list will make their own judgements and >> discuss the technical aspects. >> > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
