Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam in

Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15446804 en Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:30:41 EDT Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:30:41 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15451406 dannysdailys : Yes, if they get rid of the White List, that's exactly what will happen.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15451406 Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:06:24 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15449427 RARPSL :

said by Fatal Vector

:

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?

Having the users put you in their "allowed" list is of no use if there is no mail to be accepted. AoL has a habit of rejecting the message at their Gateway so it never enters the AoL Mail System in the first place (where it can be checked against each recipient’s allowed list).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15449427 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:52:59 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15448251 moonpuppy :

said by GTaylor

:

Problem is there are plenty of legit advertisers who use shaddy third parties/spammers to do their advertising. Don't believe me? Fill out a request for a lower m*0*r*7*g*A*g*e rate and see how many Fortune 500 Companies call you within the next 24 hours.

DING DING DING !!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

They were discussing this last night on the NBC Nightly News. The "plausible deniability" angle is what these companies are doing now.

Now, if I could only find that website where some guy hacked a spammers system and grabbed all these photos of her ugly self and found her using email lists and hacking AOL accounts. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15448251 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:50:09 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446804 dannysdailys : Being an online editor for 10 years, I'll answer a piece of this for you.

The reason people don't do permissions is the same reason they don't look at their spam box and just delete it.

They're stupid! AOL knows this and is trying to make it our problem. And, it's not just AOL, it happens to all the ISP's who use spam boxes. AOL is so big, it's a much larger problem.

I've had new subscribed members, who have to fill out a disclaimer to even join; not read ONE issue of Danny's Daily's! I'm not making this up. Another deleted the first three issues right out of the box. I deleted her when I caught it. But, I only know this because I'm on AOL. I can't check status with any other system. That's another problem.

Without the Whitelist, which is what they propose to get rid of, my email would go through their normal filters. Just the volume of it will trip their filters. This is what they're not saying. This is why the people don't realize their suddenly going to lose all their subscriptions. This could take out the whole company. This is what happens when bad ideas are taken as gospel. This actually is a war already lost when Microsoft tried to do it. Someone didn't get the memo.

I comes down to "no pay? No access to our members." Period! And don't let their doublespeak change it. There is almost no spam on AOL now, this can't be about spam.

Frankly, I take offense to be included in the same category as a spammer. Getting on their Whitelist is no big deal; staying on it is. I've been on it since it's inception. Now that's not good enough?

While I agree with the concept, I don't agree with AOL's way of doing it.

The concept is pure, AOL has turned it into a money operation. Exactly what they accused Microsoft of when they tried to do it.

These guys have to be idiots fresh out of school. And lots of bean counters eh?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446804 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:01:42 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446687 GTaylor :

said by TKJunkMail

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? :uhh:

But legit advertisers, who are PAYING to send you mail, will honor unsubscribe requests.

Problem is there are plenty of legit advertisers who use shaddy third parties/spammers to do their advertising. Don't believe me? Fill out a request for a lower m*0*r*7*g*A*g*e rate and see how many Fortune 500 Companies call you within the next 24 hours.

Myself, I use Yahoo and I don't pay for it so I have no right to gripe about them using this method. But if I'm an AOL user paying $23.95 a month then yes, I'd be totally against it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446687 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:47:11 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spammers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446685 Erwin_D :

said by GOLFnSUN :
I don't think this is such a bad idea. Anything that further separates the legitimate advertisers...

Hold it right there...

You probably haven't lived on Earth long enough, but us humans have this universal truth:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "LEGITIMATE" E-MAIL MARKETING!

Only spammers (and the politicians they brainwashed/bribed) lack the knowlege of this fact. So any idea, even 'paid' ones are just conceived by spammers in order to appear more legit, which by default is impossible, as spam can never be legit.

When will people realize this?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446685 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:47:05 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446017 en102 : 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 ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446017 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:08:35 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445507 Fatal Vector :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445507 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:46:00 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445463 Fatal Vector :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445463 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:37:55 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445423 TKJunkMail :

said by moonpuppy

But legit advertisers, who are PAYING to send you mail, will honor unsubscribe requests.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445423 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:32:41 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445408 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? :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445408 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:30:19 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445115 TKJunkMail :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445115 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:37:09 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spammers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445038 moonpuppy :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15445038 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:25:22 EDT Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15444929 nixen :

said by TKJunkMail

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)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15444929 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:06:14 EDT Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spammers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15444886 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.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15444886 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:58:37 EDT