Will certified e-mail stop spam? (was: unsubscribing... etc)

Walter Dnes waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org
Sun Apr 16 21:52:59 UTC 2006


On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 11:15:03AM -0400, Evan Leibovitch wrote

> Most spam that I see appears to relate to fraudulent activity (phishing, 
> 419, "OEM software", fake drugs), and IMO should be attacked on this 
> levels as crime at the source. If countries can have treaties on 
> protecting their citizens' intellectual property, they should also be 
> able to co-operate on reducing international fraud. Law enforcement 
> doesn't *have* to be far behind the perps if the public will exists.

  One theory I've seen advanced on the NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email)
newsgroup is that "main-sleaze" (i.e. "legitimate business") wants the
crooks kicked out so that they can take over and flood your mailbox.
What *REALLY* annoys big business about spam, is that today's crooks
might give people the impression that *ALL* email advertising is a scam.
I see it not as a crusade to clean up email, but rather as a turf war
between different spam gangs.  I would much rather have "the crooks"
running spam.  Right now, it's the small-time crooks whining about
blocklists obstructing their "right to frea speach".  Imagine what
things would be like if it was Wal-Mart, etc, getting their spam^H^H^H^H
exciting offers blocked.  Blocklists would be outlawed in no time flat.

> Most of the pay-per-use answers I've seen here are hardly worthwhile. 
> They may reduce the volume of spam somewhat, but will not eliminate the 
> larger problem and create new problems and inconveniences of their own.

  They're *NOT INTENDED TO REDUCE SPAM*, at least not directly.  The
idea behind "certified email" is that AOL's garbage^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
super-duper email client will show a special flag indicating that, yes
indeed, this email actually did come from your bank, not a phisher.  The
idea is to reduce fraud.  If it makes phishing less effective and
reduces the incentive for phishers to spam, that would be a serendipitous
side-effect.

> They will allow people who can pay for the privilege to continue to 
> spam,

  Spam is a very low-cost advertising medium, with a very low response
rate.  But you can make up for it with volume.  Adding even a bit of
overhead to the equation makes spam uneconomical as a broadcast
advertising medium.  That'll stop 90% of the spam (except see below).

> while others who may have a more legitimate or desperate message to
> get out will be stopped.

  AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH  NNNNNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!!  If you look
carefully at the list at http://www.dearaol.com you'll see all the usual
American lib-left suspects... moveon.org, Democrat National Committee,
AFL-CIO, and various "voters leagues".  You think things are bad now,
wait till politicians de-fang anti-spam technologies to make sure that
their "urgent messages" get through.  These are the same hypocrites who
put in laws over-riding no-soliciting restrictions to allow politicians
to go knocking door-to-door and over-ride do-not-call lists to allow
pollsters and politicians to keep your phone ringing off the hook every
election.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1
My musings on technology and security at http://tech_sec.blog.ca
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml





More information about the Legacy mailing list