 Jon GebWal-Mart Sucks
join:2001-01-09
Howell, MI | We need government intervention There has to be a way to combat this. In all reality the internet is in its infancy. This problem I bet will be relegated to the past eventually, but for now the email system is a complete disaster because of a handful of assholes. |
|
|
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | said by Jon Geb:In all reality the internet is in its infancy. People have been saying that for over 20 years, when it truly was an infant. But unless you can predict the future, there's no way to know what stage in it's life the internet is. It doesn't have a defined lifespan like a human.
And we've never had one before to base a prediction off of, so as far as we know, the internet as we know it MAY be an infant; hell, it may simply last forever, meaning it has no life-like stages at all. However, with the ever-growing need for bandwidth greatly surpassing the physical growth of the internet, it may collapse in a decade or so, and we'll look back and say "gee, we were lucky to have internet in 2007 - it was almost dead by then!"
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. |
|
 NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Jon Geb
Well actually SPAM could be combated much better by ISPs and without government intervention. Trust me, the last thing you want is government intervention.
ISPs tend to like relying on SPAM filters because they are relatively cheap and do a fair job.
However, ISPs have it within their power to do much more. But the additional return on investment to get the remaining SPAM is fairly small.
Even so though, I think there are some programmatic methods and changes to their email relays handling of mail that could actually greatly reduce even the amount of SPAM that gets into the email system to begin with. In other words it would not be accepted by their relay.
If a major ISP is serious and willing to put forth the effort let me know via a PM. I have the idea, but not the resources, nor sizeable enough customer base.
--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Honor Your ISP Terms of Service
Comcast: »www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp
Verizon: »onlinehelp.verizon.net/consumer/···0707.pdf |
|
| reply to Jon Geb
said by Jon Geb:There has to be a way to combat this. In all reality the internet is in its infancy. This problem I bet will be relegated to the past eventually, but for now the email system is a complete disaster because of a handful of assholes. Well those very same "assholes" seem to have been very "influential" when it came time to pass legislation to combat the problem they themselves created, weren't they? I seem to recall that there were some pretty loud complaints that CAN-SPAM was pretty much stillborn in terms of effectiveness.
If you're claiming we need "government intervention" to solve this problem, that's what the CAN-SPAM Act was.
And like most attempts to Legislate the Bad Things Away, it hasn't quite worked out.
(I hear they're going to try to do something about the prevalence of drugs in the US next.) |
|
| reply to NOYB
You would think ISP would want to do more, it would actualy pay for it's self in the cost savings (a guess on my part). Think about it, every ISP has to pay for the bandwith they get from L3, sprint link, ect.. And in that trafic, is spam, taking up bandwith that could be used for beter (lower) latency, faster upload/download speeds. And then there is the storage costs. That spam email needs to rest on a mail server somewhere in that ISP network, taking up space that could be offered to subs for larger mailbox storage, ect...
Of couse i can see these things as i dont work/run these companies, and also have commond sense! |
|
