 moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to GOLFnSUN Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spammers
said by GOLFnSUN :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? |
|
  GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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 |
|
 moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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?  |
|
  GOLFnSUN 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 | 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. |
|
  GTaylor Premium join:2002-12-14 Frisco, TX clubs:
| reply to GOLFnSUN said by GOLFnSUN :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. 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. |
|
 moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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.  |
|