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