how-to block ads
|
Marilla
I Am My Own Arbiter
Premium
join:2002-12-06
Belpre, OH
| reply to Unit649
Re: Dual Costs
This is why I believe that this issue really is NOT about laws. Schumer is, to me, exposing himself to be a politician who really doesn't care enough to know what he is talking about (or, to be fair, even getting a staffer to learn about it) but instead is just hopping on the bandwagon because it seems like the 'popular' thing to do.
The fact is, ultimately people will 'spam' from any country that allows it. Of course, linking the ads back to the company being advertised for COULD help, as long as we're careful to weed out the 'false positives' there; But a lot of this junk isn't legitimate products in the first place, so even THAT won't "fix" the issue, once and for all.
So that's why I think this issue must have a TECHNICAL solution, not a legislative one. Yes, I am aware that some 'hackers' will find a way around any such solution, but hackers have found ways to compromise secure websites, too... that doesn't mean that the vast majority of such sites are perfectly safe to use. | |
Unit649
I B U, Who U B?
Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA
 ·Comcast
| Plus the simple fact is, if they ban one medium of spamming (email) they will move to another. Whats next, massive IM spamming (it happens but could be larger scale). Websites you can't visit till you click on the spam? The possibilities are endless!
--
U ::::Founder, ForeverChat IRC Network:::: »www.foreverchat.net | |
Marilla
I Am My Own Arbiter
Premium
join:2002-12-06
Belpre, OH
| Well, the IM spam thing can be dealt with fairly easily: don't accept messages at all from people not on your list. If people did this, OR if the software set this setting by default, IM spam (which actually IS something of a problem) would dry up and blow away.
As for websites that do such things... that's easy, too; I'll simply never visit the site. Of course, I say that's easy for me... I visit very few sites as it is.. hehe | |
Unit649
I B U, Who U B?
Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA
·Comcast
| My point basically is there is always another way. If there wasn't, there would be a massive fight over this.
What scares me is what kind of liability this stuff will carry. I run a mailserver. If I accidentally unsecure it (say I reinstall it and it takes me a little bit to reconfigure it), then I'm liable if some idiot grabs it and turns it into a relay.
Not that I would ever do so purposely, but sometimes "sweeping" legislation scares me too. I think the first thing would be PUBLIC EDUCATION, I'm sure there are alot of insecure mailservers out there, if they would come out DEFAULTED to being secure, we'd probably have less spam already. Then its just a matter of ISPs enforcing AUP-if you have someone using a cable modem to send spam, and once the IP gets blocked they just reconnect, you get them off the network, cancel them, and enforce your AUP-go after them monitarily. It should be obvious when you see that type of traffic. Hit them in the pocketbook. Most ISPs won't though because its too much trouble. If some of these guys started getting held accountable, there would be alot less of it too. But till that happens, its a profitable business and they will keep doing so. Land a few of them in jail. Alot of ISPs don't allow servers on non business, non static lines. I know that pisses alot of people off, but you know, this stuff is why we have this going on-people whine when ports get blocked, so they don't do it, and mr spammer is right back in business. I pay for a business account because I want to run servers. I think if you really want to, you should be required to-if I do anything against the AUP, I have a static IP, its easy to trace. Maybe ISPs should use a static IP system, then each person has one IP, and any traffic is the responsibility of the person with that IP....no wait, that would be too easy.
If ISPs would enforce AUPs a bit more like they should, a bigger portion of these people wouldn't be around, I would think. If I can run an IRC server and have it monitored to the point that if I exceed my bandwith allocation and get easily billed for that overage, I would think ISPs could tell when a particular line is being used to send copious amounts of spam. You would think the DNS requests alone from that one IP would tip them off. If not, the obvious traffic coming out of port 110?
Sorry about the rant. 
--
U ::::Founder, ForeverChat IRC Network:::: »www.foreverchat.net | |
|
