dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
981

ImFixingIt
join:2001-12-11
Providence, RI

ImFixingIt

Member

This is easy.

1.) All American ISPs should be default reject email from all foreign domains unless a subscriber directly requests email from either a specific domain or a specific email address served on a foreign domain.

2.) Offer rewards to one ISP1 reporting another ISP2 for not address spamming issues originating from ISP2 that does not shutdown that spammer with 72 hours of operation. This would include a monetary fine (say $100K per episode) for the ISP, a fine agasint the spammer $10K per episode), and a listing of both parties (ISP2 and spammer) on a federal listing agency that a) removes the spammer's right to vote, get a federal or state job, receive snail mail from the USPS (my favorite ) etc.

3.) Re-invent the opt-out mechanism to an opt-in where by default domains are closed and an ISP1-sent email with a list of USA-only domains requesting to send email to subscriber must seek subscriber permission before doing so, and subscriber must officially make request to receive email from foreign domains.

4.) Any foreign nation not cracking down on open-relays immediately ceases to receive US foreign support. Period. Let them worry about their own people and how they country as a whole is affected by actions of individuals and their shoddy network security.

5.) Repeat offender in the USA get mandatory jail time breaking rocks into stones for 10 years. Hehe, they'll learn. Or maybe make them come mow our lawns for 10 years. "Thinking about spamming someone? Is it worth the indenturement?"

6.) Pass a law allowing the individual consumer to control their POP mail on their local end and not the ISP end.

Ok, I could go on, but why? We are lazy Americans and nothing will change.

Brian_F
join:2001-09-25

Brian_F

Member

Re: This is easy.

The problem with spam that I have experienced is this:

I have a service that provides short urls to people, and when an abusive user signs up and spams that address out in thousands of e-mails I get the blame. For example, they send out spam saying go here for more information and the domain is theirname.n2v.net. N2V.net gets blamed for the spammers actions. I now moderate all new accounts to keep this to a minimum, however it is impossible really.

What about the web hosts out there? People try and sue innocent web hosts where the spammer signed up with them instantly through false credit card information, and within minutes sets up cgi scripts that mass mail thousands of people. The web host takes the blame and the spammer cannot be tracked down, and moves on to another unsuspecting web host.

This is a much larger problem for the web hosts and service providers that are too small to afford legal protection. Don’t believe me? Check out webhostingtalk.com and under the running a web hosting business section you will see hundreds of discussions over how to prevent spammers from abusing their servers.

Brian

ImFixingIt
join:2001-12-11
Providence, RI

ImFixingIt

Member

Brian,

I have always lived by the philosophy that if a business cannot afford to do business in the environment that exist in then they cannot afford their business and should get out.

I feel the same exact way as those 'businesses' that cannot seem to afford business connectivity solutions and abuse consumer connectivity solutions as a result. These are not businesses they are thorns resulting from someone's dreams that they cannot convince someone else to give them money to do it the 'business way'.

If someone cannot afford their own domain, their own mail servers, their, yadda, yadda, yadda, then they can't afford to run much of a business and they can ONLY survive by abusing consumer services and taking advantage of open relays and other resources to barely exist.

How far do you think you could run a new car dealership if you had nothing to show people and only could sell on orders that took 6 weeks? Abuse is abuse. If you allow someone access to your servers and they abuse it and you do nothing (either out of pity, ignorance, laziness, etc.) then you are as much at fault as the culprit to begin with.

But, unlike Comcast, you, yourself, seem to be doing something. Thus, if you can afford to police your clients' abuses then they should too.

Brian_F
join:2001-09-25

Brian_F to ImFixingIt

Member

to ImFixingIt
It's nearly impossible to control what people do on the Internet. Let's say that I own a web hosting company, and someone signs up for service. It looks legitimate so I approve of the account. One day later I notice 100's of spam complaints in my inbox alerting me that a user is abusing my service and to remove them. Most of the people telling me this are happy to inform me about the problem, when the other 1% figures out 100 different ways to call me an a**hole and how they're going to sue me. They should be suing the person that did the action. It's like if someone uses AOL to find a teenage girl and lure her to his apartment is AOL responsible for providing the man with the ISP account? Or what if a gun store sold a gun to a man that kills someone.

It's really a tough call to make. I mean, if you wanted to, you could track down the spammer, their isp, their web host, the web host's data center, the data center's backbone providers, those backbone provider's investors and sue them all if you wanted to.

Brian

Whateverhotmailcom
@popsite.net

Whateverhotmailcom

Anon

Re: This is easy.

Brian, you say that it isn't your fault. You compare it to a gun-shop selling a gun that kills someone.

But the gun-shop isn't the one that shoots them. If the spam messages are coming from your server, or advertising a website hosted on your server, than you *are* the one that's shooting them.

You are apparently giving away free access, similar to Hotmail and others. Dealing with the spammers is an expense. If you do a good job, then the expense is all yours. If you do a lousy job, the problem gets spread out to other people because you didn't do your job.

Don't be surprised when you find your IP's and your domains in various blacklists. Nobody wants to deal with a provider (paid or not) who allows the crap out.

Quit puking all over every system on the net, and people will quit thinking that you're slime. Until then - keep your slime away from me.

Friedchicken
@204.209.x.x

Friedchicken to ImFixingIt

Anon

to ImFixingIt
How about prohibiting the use of unsolicited email for marketing purposes? Attack the person who is paying these freaks cash to start the cycle..

bncache
@213.203.x.x

bncache to ImFixingIt

Anon

to ImFixingIt
I dont agree, he just provides the gun. The spammer is the one using it.
The difference is that he can take the gun away from the abuser once it is abused.

ImFixingIt
join:2001-12-11
Providence, RI

ImFixingIt

Member

Gun and ammunition sales are regulated on the county, state, and federal levels. Its not like guns and ammo are being giving away for free. The user is required to be licensed and background checked. What checking do you offer?

Besides, your credibility is lacking when not confident to post from your own domain or the domain servicing you. But then what should one expect considering the IP block is overseas!?!
[text was edited by author 2002-02-20 11:48:50]

Brian_F
join:2001-09-25

Brian_F to ImFixingIt

Member

to ImFixingIt
I do not currently have an ISP, or web host and do not send out "slime."

I'm just saying, think of the people that try and run legitimate businesses and have to deal with this every day.

ImFixingIt
join:2001-12-11
Providence, RI

ImFixingIt

Member

Legitimate and innocent are two different concepts. One could run a legitimate business and be guilty as sin.

cerberos
@lowrp1.vic.optusnet.

cerberos to ImFixingIt

Anon

to ImFixingIt
i have no problem with people free acounts and such, but i feel they still should need some real world ID to get it. So you aren't anonomous to the law, thats th problem with everything internet, its too easy to be anonomous to the law.

you can't exspect anyone to bring in policies of asking for a police check and stuff, or even waiting for RL confirmation of identity untill its law and everyone has to do it. Its the one thing i think should realy happen, if a complaint is made against some user and the service can't give sufcient details to the authorities on who it is they should be shut down.

rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA

rahlquist to ImFixingIt

Member

to ImFixingIt
Ok how about this, Limit users to 5 emails a day for the first 30 days. That 5 emails to any one address. That gives long enough for a billing cycle to go through and if they provide phony billing and contact information boot them early.

I'm at 500+ spams a week because I used to help out in the MS newsgroups, my email addy is on every darn list on the net....

ImFixingIt
join:2001-12-11
Providence, RI

ImFixingIt

Member

Real world ID would spark criticism from the privacy groups worldwide. Of course, is spam did not exist I would have little need for free email accounts. Of course, one could easily require something in the way of a credit-card verification process with no fee. But then ISps go from free accounts to costing them something.

Also, limiting the number of emails sent for the first 30 days will only postpone Spammers for just 30-days. They'll simply signup for xx-xxx email accounts daily. Remember, seldom (if never) does a Spammer actually wish to get a response on the email addy they are spamming from.

Personally, I am all for a finger-print ID based system. But then again, I have nothing to hide (yeah, right), and would make it damn difficult for a convicted Spammer to continue like they are now. Make them buy a $200 reader, connect to their PC, and signup online with their finger-print ID, and make the reader only capable of being used on a website once per month--or something like this.