garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | Waaaaah!
Nothing like crybaby spammers... |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spammers
I don't think this is such a bad idea. Anything that further separates the legitimate advertisers from the pure garbage spammers could be a good thing. If all the legit advertisers paid and could be segregated in your inbox from the garbage companies selling un-prescribed Viagra and penis enlargers, then the true spammers could be squashed more easily. And if you don't want to see ads even from legit advertisers you can still use all the regular tools to filter them out too.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to garagerock
Re: Waaaaah!
said by garagerock  : Nothing like crybaby spammers... Uh... SpamHaus is a spam FIGHTER. And, truth be told, they can be fairly fascistic in pursuit of spam stomping. They are not "crybaby spammers".
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmmmmmmm............
Just what don't they get.....it's all effing spam, and no one wants it, legit or not.....jeesh....they just want to make (more) money....besides spammers know that it is going to be next to impossible to stop them, so why pay for it....JMT
--
BlooMe |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam
said by TKJunkMail :I don't think this is such a bad idea. Anything that further separates the legitimate advertisers from the pure garbage spammers could be a good thing. If all the legit advertisers paid and could be segregated in your inbox from the garbage companies selling un-prescribed Viagra and penis enlargers, then the true spammers could be squashed more easily. And if you don't want to see ads even from legit advertisers you can still use all the regular tools to filter them out too. Personally, I think it's a horrible idea. I run several mailing lists. These are lists that the email recipients have to issue a submission request to join, then have to confirm the request to actually get processed onto the list (that way no one can subscribe on their behalf). I run these lists for free to support a few interest groups. It's entirely possible/likely that AOL, seeing periodic large amounts of traffic from one source to multiple recipients, would want to tariff me. Since I'm doing this for free, what it ultimately means is that I will simply have to cleans the lists of any AOL subscribers and set a subscription request filter that denies AOL subscribers.
I base this fear on the fact that, during one of AOLs previous "policy decisions", my mail queues backed up with hundreds of emails until I wrote them to request the block be removed. Given AOL's money hemorrhaging, I somehow doubt one will be able to simply request exemption.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | reply to nixen
Re: Waaaaah!
sorry, maybe I should read before I post...sorry. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spammers
said by TKJunkMail :I don't think this is such a bad idea. Anything that further separates the legitimate advertisers from the pure garbage spammers could be a good thing. If all the legit advertisers paid and could be segregated in your inbox from the garbage companies selling un-prescribed Viagra and penis enlargers, then the true spammers could be squashed more easily. And if you don't want to see ads even from legit advertisers you can still use all the regular tools to filter them out too. There are a couple of reasons this is a bad idea.
First, this does nothing more than to legitimize unwanted email. All this does is make more money for AOL and any other ISP that wants to buy into this idea. It's bad enough they some ISPs make money of the "pink" contracts they sell spammers.
Secondly, you are a proponent of "per=byte" charges to the consumer for access. So not only does this count against my per byte count (which I will be charged for later), but the ISP gets money from the spammer to send out the mail.
Another point is who is going to check out if these offers are fraudulent or not. Just because they pay for it, doesn't mean it is legit. How many websites are registered now with stolen credit cards? |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Define SPAM
One definition is any mass market (and that includes mailing lists) emailing. And considering that AOL has a history of blocking email, even domains that are not ordinarily associated with garbage spam (I know, at times I was not able to write my sister who for some reason (cheap?) puts up with AOL), you have other potential issues.
If a failing company like AOL can make this work, then it is possible that other big 'ISP' like entities will add that to the revenue stream and hold up email you want until it get paid for. Ummm....Another 'government' recovery 'fee'? The proposed government antispam tax from about six or eight years ago?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Julio
Bachatero y Que?
Premium
join:2003-03-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs: | if they do that
then i want a cut of their profits. if its spam, i DONT WANT IT, regardless if the spammer pays the ISP or not. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam
said by moonpuppy :There are a couple of reasons this is a bad idea. First, this does nothing more than to legitimize unwanted email. All this does is make more money for AOL and any other ISP that wants to buy into this idea. It's bad enough they some ISPs make money of the "pink" contracts they sell spammers. Secondly, you are a proponent of "per=byte" charges to the consumer for access. So not only does this count against my per byte count (which I will be charged for later), but the ISP gets money from the spammer to send out the mail. Another point is who is going to check out if these offers are fraudulent or not. Just because they pay for it, doesn't mean it is legit. How many websites are registered now with stolen credit cards? To address a point or two you made. AOL will still allow blocking of these msgs in your account setup: »www.usatoday.com/tech/news/compu···il_x.htm
AOL subscribers will still be able to block mail from certified senders by adjusting anti-spam tools on their accounts, AOL spokesman Nicholas Graham says. That answers a couple of your points.
And this link addresses some others:
»www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1923022,00.asp
If I got a certified e-mail from a vendor I didn't want to deal with, I would feel OK about clicking the unsubscribe link.
In fact, Goodmail is planning a CertifiedUnsubscribe feature whereby they would act as an intermediary for recipients to remove them from lists. What's not to like?
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album |
|
AT1
join:2003-03-05
Sedalia, MO | reply to Julio
Re: if they do that (Sounds Great!!)
Yea!!!!! Sounds great!!!!!
Sell every AOL customers address to a spammer to raise revenue. How else they gonna get the address??
Another great reason to tell AOL to STUFF IT! |
|
almostAnEEngineer
@stmarytx.edu
| reply to Julio
Re: if they do that
What if they charged but the recipient could "give back" the money to the sender after receipt by identifying mail as non-spam? (obviousely many people on mailers are morons though so maybe if 50% or more of the recipients identify the bulk-mailer's mail as non-spam) This would eliminate the expense for legitimate mailers but would likely curb the amount of spam. -- they could even make it .25 instead of .0025 per item. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam
So why pay for a message that can still be blocked by the user? As a spammer, I would only pay for those that can be delivered.
As for the Goodmail certified mail, that idea has floated around for years. Those unsubscribe links are nothing but confirmation that the address is good enough to keep spamming.
Spammers don't follow the rules now. Think they will follow them later?  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by moonpuppy :So why pay for a message that can still be blocked by the user? As a spammer, I would only pay for those that can be delivered. As for the Goodmail certified mail, that idea has floated around for years. Those unsubscribe links are nothing but confirmation that the address is good enough to keep spamming. Spammers don't follow the rules now. Think they will follow them later? But legit advertisers, who are PAYING to send you mail, will honor unsubscribe requests.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| reply to nixen
As I said here before: AOL has good mail controls. WHAT is so hard about requesting/requiring your AOL subscribers to put your sites e mail on their allowed list? Hell, you allready aggrivate them with having to get "confirmation" e mails, dont you? Many "newsletters" are nothing but shameless hype and promotion anyway.
This ensures that the mail gets to them since it doesn't go through the filters. That's simple enough, isn't it? All it really requires is a bit of knowledge about AOL mail and a few instructions on the appropriate page.
All this whining and teeth gnashing is amazing. What it amounts to is that spammers ("legitimate" or not) can pay AOL or google to allow their spam to get through to their members, guaranteed. Mail from others WILL STILL GET THROUGH, but will be routed through filters, GOT IT?
Basically, in baby talk, what it amounts to is pay for access and if you think the spammers ("legitimate" or not) wont pay when they can pass on this new cost of business to the companies that hire them, I pity you.
They WILL pay for guaranteed access if it's basically costing them nothing. Needless to say, this does absolutely NOTHING to curtail spam, regardless of the hype and teeth gnashing.
This is just another greedy money grab. For AOL it's a way to make up the losses from declining "Membership". For Google, it's just another greedy money stream, like they dont make enough as it is. I will laugh when the mighty Google finally over extends itself and comes crashing down. Then they wont be the darlings of the investment world and you watch how fast that world turns on them when they aren't raking in the money. |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | reply to TKJunkMail
Do you SERIOUSLY think "illegitimate" spammers wont pay for guaranteed access? Get real. They will just pass on the cost to those that hired them. Maybe when it gets too expensive, companies will stop hiring them to spam. |
|
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs:
| SPAM? Blocked!
I guess this will mean scrapping all the AOL ads now showing on televisions everywhere?
I can see the next level in the spam-wars escalation: charging the customer extra to protect them from the spam they are making money off of by allowing past the spam filters of the system.
What part of "WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH SPAM" is it that Yahoo and AOL don't understand?
--
...then THINK! again!! |
|
jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN
| Not a good thing.
I don't use AOL or Yahoo, so am not directly affected by this. But I would not like to see this become common practice.
I don't like spam any more than anyone else. But I can filter spam when I receive it. What I don't want is for my email provider deciding what mail I can receive and what mail I cannot receive. I certainly don't want my email provider to charge someone to send me email when I have already paid my email provider for that service. |
|
BoomerSooner
Premium
join:2004-02-11
·Pioneer Telephone ..
·Pioneer Internet
| What's the difference?
Playing a little devil's advocate here but ...
What's the difference between an ISP charging a company to send an advertisement/SPAM through their servers versus the postal service (or any other carrier) charging a company postage to send an ad through regular snail mail?
If an advertiser can't "afford" to pay the postage, doesn't the same "free speech" argument apply? Isn't the carrier "determining" what mail you get based on the fact that they are charging the advertiser?
/devil's advocate hat off/
--
I'll take "Things Only I Would Know" for $10,000. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to Fatal Vector
Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam
I agree, this just makes AOL technically an indirect spammer. By taking payoffs to allow spamming, it pretty much means that AOL is doing business with these so called 'companies'. This does nothing to curtail spam, but more or less just has them pay toll.
Let's do some rough math on this...
Use a number like 10 million subs hit at $0.0025/message = $25,0000. I'm sure that both sides will look for loop holes to charge/save money (i.e. AOL internal disctribution lists count as one sub). Also, how do you charge an off shore spammer ? |
|
