Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| Well, something will need to be done eventually....
Sure, with spam filtering and such, spam is less of a headache. Still, with the millions of spam mails that are sent every day, its just a matter of time until something else needs to be done to fix this problem. The real issue is that the email system we have in place today is the same one the military used back when the internet was private. It hasn't changed and it needs to be changed in order to curb the spam problem.
Whats the solution here? Besides an overhaul of the email system OR implementing a new system, there is no easy solution. Any major overhaul will require a lot of money in retooling what everyone else has. Every mail server will need to be patched. This is just me thinking on the surface here.
Until we make a change to the system itself, these problems won't go away. They will only get worse. The government's attempt to curb this problem did nothing.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by Nightfall  :Whats the solution here? Besides an overhaul of the email system OR implementing a new system, there is no easy solution. Any major overhaul will require a lot of money in retooling what everyone else has. Every mail server will need to be patched. This is just me thinking on the surface here. Until we make a change to the system itself, these problems won't go away. They will only get worse. The government's attempt to curb this problem did nothing. Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
| said by Nightfall :Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem. actually, there is... charge money to send every email. |
|
meh37
@verizon.net
| reply to Nightfall
CAN-SPAM wasn't designed to eliminate spam; it was designed to merely establish guidelines to be followed by those who send it. And that's all it's done. Those "high profile" cases were about spammers who violated the 'restrictions' (and I use the term loosely). As was said, making ALL spam opt-in would be a great first step. (Yeah, that'll happen.) |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers :said by Nightfall :Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem. actually, there is... charge money to send every email. SHHHH!! Don't give ISPs any bright ideas.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers : actually, there is... charge money to send every email. And since a lot of spammers use hijacked machines to send their crap out, that will accomplish nothing. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| said by TheWickerMan :said by Packeteers : actually, there is... charge money to send every email. And since a lot of spammers use hijacked machines to send their crap out, that will accomplish nothing. I think its the vast majority that do that. Charging per email will only be bothersome to legitimate users.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
anon32bat
@rr.com | no charge for sending more then (insert number here) messages a second or smiler |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers :actually, there is... charge money to send every email. Yeah, that will bankrupt a bunch of Mom and Pops and those who aren't computer savvy.
Most SPAM is sent by zombie relay machines--- PC's owned by viruses, trojans, and the like.
Result of your system would actually make SPAM more profitable then legitimate email marketing, and the users would be stuck with being banned for life from broadband because they owe thousands of $$$$ in bills due to robo-spam.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to meh37
The problem with those guidelines is that spammers by and large don't follow them. Every so often, the government will trot out a spammer to make an example of them, but ten other spammers rise to take his place. The government threatens fines and the spammers collectively shrug their shoulders. Many are overseas and thus outside of US jurisdiction. CAN-SPAM has been a complete failure.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to anon32bat
So you don't charge people for sending more e-mail? Wouldn't that let spammers off the hook entirely?
Or maybe you meant no charge for sending less than X messages per second. In this case, the spammers will just space out their messages. Suppose I'm a spammer. I have a zombie network of 10,000 machines at my disposal. If I have each machine send out 1 spam message every minute over 8 hours, I've sent out 4.8 million messages. As my zombie network grows, I can send out even more spam messages without triggering the "e-mail charge" system. And if I do trigger it, what do I care? The people who would be paying would be the owners of the zombied systems, not me.
Then there's the whole question of who gets the money. Charging per e-mail is not the solution.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers :said by Nightfall :Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem. actually, there is... charge money to send every email. I like the idea that was brought up once before. To charge 1/10th of a penny to send an email. The people who spam would have to pay a ton of money to do it. Once again though, it would require an overhaul of the current system. That is something a lot of people don't want to do. They want the same open system but no spam. That just isn't going to happen. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to TheWickerMan
said by TheWickerMan :said by Packeteers : actually, there is... charge money to send every email. And since a lot of spammers use hijacked machines to send their crap out, that will accomplish nothing. In order to make a system like that work, there would need to be an overhaul of what we have now. Think about it, if we were to overhaul the system and put in one that required 1/10th of a penny to send an email, wouldn't it work pretty well? Thats since we are living in "what if" land. Since no overhaul is coming, it sounds like we are going to be dealing with spam for a long time. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by Nightfall : Think about it, if we were to overhaul the system and put in one that required 1/10th of a penny to send an email, wouldn't it work pretty well? How does that address the issue of spammers using hijacked machines? And that's not a "what if." That's something that's actually happening. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| said by TheWickerMan :said by Nightfall : Think about it, if we were to overhaul the system and put in one that required 1/10th of a penny to send an email, wouldn't it work pretty well? How does that address the issue of spammers using hijacked machines? And that's not a "what if." That's something that's actually happening. With an overhaul of the system, it would mean that there would be no more hijacked machines. You would have some kind of secure login or other means of authentication. As I said here, just thinking outside the box. |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :...CAN-SPAM has been a complete failure. except for legitimizing a large percentage of spam (failure of design or failure of purpose? I wonder). I guess you could classify them as "spammers", versus the "scammers" who don't follow the guidelines (the ones who use bots/botnets to spew forth their crap into the world, the ones with no accountability for whom charging real money for sending email would have no effect whatsoever)--but they aren't even located in the U.S. (for the most part), so CAN-SPAM can't even touch them.
What a wicked web we weave. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers :said by Nightfall :Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem. actually, there is... charge money to send every email. I recommend a "follow the money." Spammers spam because there is money to be made. Rather go after spammer directly go after the company's making the products spammers are hawking.
/tom |
|
