 |  | 
MrTangent
join:2001-12-28
Earth | Re: Finally As much as I hate spam one could argue for the freedom of the press in this case in favor of the spammers right to... well, spam. | |
| | | | | | Anon | Spammers have no rights I agree with Dr.Scavio.
My Points. They usually hide there true Identity.
The press has rights but not the right to throw their crap into my house(ie spammers). There is not right to intrude in to my life style. | |
| | 
hep cat
do da dirdy bird
join:2001-02-17
Decatur, GA
| I've seen people suggest an opt-out for spam where by saying "I don't want this stuff" you will magicly be removed (never really happens). My suggestion is if you want spam opt-in as you would be opted-out by default instead of opted-in.
--
When I sleep everyone else is awake. Is that why I never have any money in my wallet? | |
| | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | I actually like the ones that say:
"This is not an unsolicited email"
I just laugh when I read it.
--
"i want everything to work. i choose iSeries." | |
| | | 
Traal
join:2000-10-19
Mesa, AZ
 ·BroadVoice
| Re: Finally said by GlobalMind:
I actually like the ones that say:
"This is not an unsolicited email"
I just laugh when I read it.
Or, "This is not MLM."
--
/* The green code always compiles. */ | |
| 
SeminoleRob
join:2001-12-19
Panama City, FL
| Light at the end of the tunnel?? I have 2 accounts, my personal and one I use when I fill out anything, like when you register for something or buy something. Its amazing to see the junk you get. What's especially bad is the people who take an address, send out the junk, and then delete it so you can't go back. | |
| Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| I'd be happier... ...if the Marine Corps was used against spammers, but I'll settle for the FTC. I have forwarded spam the FTC before, but it is just so much easier to rely on the bulkmail filters at Yahoo, so I've gotten quite lax.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
| 
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
|  Watch these guys carefully!
said by NewsBytes:
Later today, Microsoft Corp., Web banner ad giant DoubleClick, and a host of direct marketers will announce their intent to begin using a technology created to help consumers quickly distinguish between spam and valid e-mails from companies they trust.
If you read this article carefully, they are focused solely on dishonest spam. This is not a crackdown on unsolicited email. It's an attempt to distract the public from meaningful reforms, which would require enacting new legislation and enforcement powers.
Do you really think the good folks at DoubleClick or the DMA can be entrusted to put teeth into policies against spam? These are the very guys who earn their livelihoods sending us unwanted solicitations! | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Watch these guys carefully! 90 percent of the spam I get is this "click on this link to unsubscribe and we'll take you off our list, nudge nudge" type.
A big part of their investigation will be to A. create a nationally opt out list for phone, mail and e-mail. B. Force providers to have legitimate opt-out hyperlinks.
This should at least dull the roar somewhat... | |
| | | 
shortckt
Watchen Das Blinken Lights
Premium
join:2000-12-05
Tenant Hell | Re: Watch these guys carefully! I wonder how long after a national opt-out list is created before some scumb*g uses a copy of that list to send spam?
I just know it will happen, too much temptation IMO. | |
| | 
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| I heard that one of the companies behind this
initiative is none other than TrustE. We all
know that TrustE's claim to protect peoples'
privacy is at best questionable; it is almost
a given that when you see their logo on a site
it means they are going to share personal data
with third parties like marketers and advertisers.
Because of this, I'm extremely sceptical whether any
real improvement in privacy or reduction in spam
will happen.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they're
very sophisticated idiots." -
Doctor Who
| |
| | 
Greenfrog
I Know How To Take Care Of Bugs
join:2002-01-06
Meriden, CT
| For more on the DMA (Direct marketing associaion) approach to Opt-Out see this: »www.mail-abuse.org/anti-dma.html It stinks to high-heaven.
I'm glad the FTC is talking about a crackdown on this stuff. I've just finished retiring my @Home account due to the bankruptcy. The side benefit will be all the spam that disappears with it. In the end I was getting 25 to 30 spam messages for every legitimate email from somebody I care about. Think about what your postal mailbox would look like if the mail was "free" for the sender. My new address (under my own domain name) is getting published NOWHERE.
Advertising emails should be strictly opt-in to a verified address. I say, "I want your offers at me@mydomain.com" They send a verification email to that address with a unique code I have to mail back or punch into a website to validate the request. If I want off, I should just have to send an email from that address with REMOVE as the subject.
What do I think the penalties for spamming should be? Sorry, the AUP for this service prevents me from answering that question, and it's unconstitutional anyway.
Ribbitt | |
| | | Anon | said by richb01803:
said by NewsBytes:
Later today, Microsoft Corp., Web banner ad giant DoubleClick, and a host of direct marketers will announce their intent to begin using a technology created to help consumers quickly distinguish between spam and valid e-mails from companies they trust.
If you read this article carefully, they are focused solely on dishonest spam. This is not a crackdown on unsolicited email. It's an attempt to distract the public from meaningful reforms, which would require enacting new legislation and enforcement powers.
Do you really think the good folks at DoubleClick or the DMA can be entrusted to put teeth into policies against spam? These are the very guys who earn their livelihoods sending us unwanted solicitations!
Furthermore, every time I use Ad-Aware to remove the nasty spyware crap from my box, Doubleclick always comes up in the scan as spyware. If MS is going to partner itself with spyware slingers, maybe the time for the switch to Linux has come. | |
| | | |
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| Helpful service from Equifax By the way, after getting 1 too many credit-card offers this past month, *plus* 2 or 3 unwanted phone calls offering to consolidate my credit card debt (the latest of which cited Equifax explicitly as the source they used to get info about my "solid credit"), I discovered a 60-second way to get off the phone call lists.
said by Equifax web site privacy page:
The Fair Credit Reporting Act prescribes a system for you to "opt-out" of certain uses of information in your credit report. This opt-out feature allows you to indicate that you do not want to receive any promotional materials from Equifax either by email or the US Postal Service. If you prefer not to receive pre-approved offers, you may call
1-888-5 OPT OUT (1-888-567-8688).
During the call (automated system) you'll be asked to confirm your home phone number, house-number portion of your street address, and your SSN (maybe one or two other innocuous pieces of info). It's a whole lot easier than those annoying services run by the RBOCs.
The outbound message states that this will get you off all 4 of the credit-reporting agency lists, not just that of Equifax.
Pick up the phone now!
[text was edited by author 2002-02-01 11:33:37] | |
| | | | | grouchy951
join:2000-09-23
Chicago, IL
| Re: Which 4? Anovis (sp?) The recording says the names of the four at the beginning of the call and at the end. choice 1 opt out for two years, choice 2 receive everything, choice 3 opt out forever.
Does paying for a non-published unlisted phone number make sense when alternate directories have the whole thing? | |
| | | 
babacher
sleep apnea sucks
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-28
Greenwood, IN
clubs: | They say those three, plus "Enovis" (sp?) - I've never heard of them.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes. | |
| | | 
kilingspam
join:2001-04-30
San Jose, CA
|  It should be, IMO --------> this
example:
To: abused_internet_user@joe-surfer.com
Subject: ADV: Spam you did not ask for or want.
From: a-valid-and-active@email-address.com
All ISP email filters can then put all emails beginning with this subject line as bulk mail.
They can choose to do what they want with them.
If a spammer decides to use an email server in another country who does not agree to this new law, their domain *.spammer.whatever is blackholed and no email is accepted from their domain until they send in writting that they have stopped spamming.
Any dns server showed to be involved with a large portion of illegally sent spam shall also be blacklisted by removing them from the root dns.
Spam is not a freedom of speech.
Trying to stay within the concepts of what the internet has become and what we want it to be we demand that spam be sent with at least the ADV subject line and real email address. This is not in any way too much to ask.
And like any other law or bill, there is always that little bit added into the last few lines.
All web pages that contain pornographic material must contain a meta tag stating that it contains porn.
example:
meta name="rating" content="PORN
I added this as I have kids and this sure would help with filtering content and allowing them to actually surf the internet.
The crappy software out today does not work to do this and with such a meta tag kids.yahoo.com would be possible. | |
| |
MrTangent
join:2001-12-28
Earth
| Re: It should be, IMO --------> this said by kilingspam:
Spam is not a freedom of speech.
Illustrate to me how you think that spam is not entitled to the constitutional freedom of speech or of the press?
For the record I think spam is worthless, but if we start "making it illegal" like some other poster responded with then who gets to decide what is, or what isn't "spam"? You're basically nullifying the honest business man who wants to try to use the internet to pay his rent and make an honest income.
Sure unsolicited emails are annoying... but illegal? I just have a problem when you're talking of writing up new legislation dictating what a person can or can't do with his/her computer, for civil liberty reasons. I think that if no one loses money, is denied an income or a voice, by a "spam" email then there's no harm. Sure it's a minor inconvenience but were you actually harmed? If so, then perhaps you can sue. If not, delete and move on. Perhaps filters and increased opt-out strategies would be nice but I still think that it's the spammer's constitutional freedom to send out the (annoying, true) spam emails.
If you pass new laws regulating "spam" who gets to decide what qualifies as "spam"? And how broad will their brush strokes be in painting this new legislative canvas? Will they be able to make arbitrary decisions on if *your* emails are spam, and thus "illegal"? I just think some abuse could be resultant here by new legislation. | |
| | |
kilingspam
join:2001-04-30
San Jose, CA
|  Re: It should be, IMO --------> this
I address the spam which is sent in a deceptive manner by saying it must say it is spam and that it must be from a valid emal address. NONE OF THIS IS TOO MUCH TO ASK. I AM SIMPLY ASKING THEM TO DO IT IN A LEGAL FASHION!
If a salesman came to my door and refused to tell me who he was would be wrong, are you saying it would not be?
Why do I have to be forced to wait 5 minutes for all this JUNK to downlad?
It costs me time & YES MONEY!
My ISP has to process all this CRAP. My email server has to process THIS CRAP! I have to delete ALL THIS CRAP! Yes, time is money. USED CPU cycles is money.
Me on the phone with a regestrar, an ISP, and someones DNS provider because a spammer had tried over 20 times to hack into my email server (and what turned out to be 8 others as well) to try and relay spam from my domain
(illegal in many ways) did not cost me money?
Should you be forced by me to stand in front of your home mailbox and listen to my pitch to buy diet pills and naked pictures of a teen and a donkey just to get a letter from a friend?
NO
Junk Mail is NOT freedom of speech but I do accept it if it is done in an HONEST FASHION.
Did you miss the part I ended it with???
"Trying to stay within the concepts of what the internet has become and what we want it to be we demand that spam be sent with at least the ADV subject line and real email address. This is not in any way too much to ask.
If you are a spammer you better be sending it without forged headers or fake email addresses or in a deceptive manner. It is a hobby of mine to be a spam cop. (hence the name kilingspam)
I spend about 2 hours a day on the phone to stop those people. I have made many, many a good friend at many an ISP's, regestrars and domains.
Not one of them liked the fact that they had been hijacked by a spammer or thousands of spams had been sent thru their servers.
ILLEGAL SPAM HAS GOT TO GO! | |
| | | |
MrTangent
join:2001-12-28
Earth
| Re: It should be, IMO --------> this Good retort. I agree with you in principle but stand by some of my original points. I would also like to see a standardized system where all "spam" would be "earmarked" with an identifier letting us know to either delete it, or have our email filters delete it automatically. I am personally as annoyed by spam as you are (well, okay maybe not as much as YOU are  ) but I don't think legislation is the answer. That's my only point really. Otherwise it sounds like you're doing a good job. | |
| | | | | | Anon | Re: It should be, IMO --------> this I have to agree with Killingspam on this, and see no reason how anyone advertising a product or service via e-mail could object to a manditory tag on unsolicited e-mails. This would actually benifit the the people the have real products\services to offer by blocking out the bogus advertisers so that their ads will not just get deleted along with the crap it's mixed in with now.
You also stated that you agree with the principals, but still stand by some of your original points, though you neglected to mention what those points actually are that you seem to hold so dear. Please elaborate on these points if you would. | |
| | | | | Anon | I believe that you are on the right track with your arguments, but the fact that porn ads being a large percentage of all the spam being sent is irrelivent. The fact that the senders of these ads hide their identities and the other deceptive practices they use are quite relivent and should be one of the focal points in eliminating this problem. | |
| | | 
Copzilla$
Mmm... Donuts
join:2000-10-10
Friendswood, TX
| Constitutional freedom of speech does not outweigh right to privacy. Unsolicited commercial email violates right to privacy.
As with all constitutional rights, they are guaranteed provided they do not invade on someone else's rights. Right to free speech means you can say what you want (within reason), but not that you can force me to listen. If I choose not to listen, then DAMMIT, LEAVE ME THE F*** ALONE! And I don't mean by HITTING THE DELETE KEY. I MEAN LEAVE ME THE F*** ALONE!
That's the problem with spam, and why it should be illegal... Commercial email shouldn't be illegal. What the spammers do SHOULD be illegal. Anything so many people find so offensive and intrusive SHOULD BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS SO INVASIVE.
--
"Free your mind and your behind will follow" - The iBrotha | |
| | | 
WildGod
God Is Dead
Premium
join:2002-01-30
NYC
| First off, Spam is not freedom of speech.
Most of the spam is not even concerning legite businesses. Ive had at least three sites shutdown simply by writing their ISP's where they had their homepage. It clearly stated that they werent allowed to use it for business purposes and we all know any sucker who sent in money to buy a penis enlarger or growth hormones was getting ripped off.
Youre not allowed to invade my private email address with unsolicited crap. I pay to have email and I refuse to pay to have phony companies advertising to me.
Secondly, Try clicking on some of the links from those spammers. Half of them have already had their sites shut down(Im sure due to ppl complaining to their ISP's).
Thirdly, If these were legitamte businesses why do they need to fake their return addresses and headers? Why do they need to steal AOL screenames and send out the spam? WHy cant they just send it from a real email address so we can opt out?
Fourthly, Most of the spam regarding pornography is disturbing. It involves animals(illegal in almost every state) or supposed family sex(again illegal).
LAST I CHECKED FREEDOM OF SPEECH DID NOT MEAN YOU COULD BREAK LAWS. YOU CANT YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED MOVIE THEATRE.
Anyone who uses the freedom of speech excuse is in my opinion ignorant.
I also think its not hard at all to define what spam is.
Simply put, it is email from a company which a person has not opted in for or done business with. And even if they have opted in or done business with the business, the business must provide a simple way to be removed and must also use a legitimate email address. I think we all know what spam is. And if you wanna get even crazier how about this: I DONT WANT ADVERTISING IN MY EMAIL PERIOD. I SHOULD SIMPLY HAVE THE OPTION OF WETHER OR NOT I WANT IT. I pay to maintain my mailbox and I dont appreciate ppl wasting my time. | |
| | | |
MrTangent
join:2001-12-28
Earth
| Re: It should be, IMO --------> this said by wildxgod:
First off, Spam is not freedom of speech.
Oh great bastion of rules, regulations and indeed legal matters of all kinds, please illuminate how you, as Chief Justice For The Constitution, have arrived at this most monumental decision? I implore that you, oh wisest of the wise, share with us the vast and unquestionable knowledge that only you possess on the matters. Do tell how you think it's not a freedom of speech.
quote:
Most of the spam is not even concerning legite businesses. Ive had at least three sites shutdown simply by writing their ISP's where they had their homepage. It clearly stated that they werent allowed to use it for business purposes and we all know any sucker who sent in money to buy a penis enlarger or growth hormones was getting ripped off.
I'll agree with you here. Spam is annoying and usually of a dubious nature.
quote:
Youre not allowed to invade my private email address with unsolicited crap. I pay to have email and I refuse to pay to have phony companies advertising to me.
This is where there's a legal grey area. I'm not sure just by paying for an email address that someone is "not allowed to invade my private email address." I chuckle when I see people amend "Any person sending an unsolicited email to this address shall pay me X-amount of dollars." As if that's a binding, consensual agreement.
quote:
Secondly, Try clicking on some of the links from those spammers. Half of them have already had their sites shut down(Im sure due to ppl complaining to their ISP's).
Thirdly, If these were legitamte businesses why do they need to fake their return addresses and headers? Why do they need to steal AOL screenames and send out the spam? WHy cant they just send it from a real email address so we can opt out?
Again, no arguments here.
quote:
Fourthly, Most of the spam regarding pornography is disturbing. It involves animals(illegal in almost every state) or supposed family sex(again illegal).
Bestiality isn't illegal in Missouri, actually. Nor is "family sex". Incest is usually only illegal if it involves a minor. I would seriously doubt that there are laws prohibiting consenting adults from engaging in intercourse, even if they happen to be related. Besides, you're applying your own personal morality here. Some people happen to like other things, even the type of links you mentioned above.
quote:
LAST I CHECKED FREEDOM OF SPEECH DID NOT MEAN YOU COULD BREAK LAWS. YOU CANT YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED MOVIE THEATRE.
I don't think sending an email to someone is necessarily illegal, even if it's a monumental pain in the ass. Sure, pulling a scam on someone is/could be illegal but just the simple act of sending an email isn't. If you are privy to an actual law contradicting this then please post a link but until then I stand by my opinion on the matter.
quote:
Anyone who uses the freedom of speech excuse is in my opinion ignorant.
One could argue that anyone who forces their own morality on someone else (your sex comments above) and takes it upon themselves to concoct laws that are possibly not even on the record book are ignorant.
quote:
I also think its not hard at all to define what spam is.
Simply put, it is email from a company which a person has not opted in for or done business with. And even if they have opted in or done business with the business, the business must provide a simple way to be removed and must also use a legitimate email address. I think we all know what spam is. And if you wanna get even crazier how about this: I DONT WANT ADVERTISING IN MY EMAIL PERIOD. I SHOULD SIMPLY HAVE THE OPTION OF WETHER OR NOT I WANT IT. I pay to maintain my mailbox and I dont appreciate ppl wasting my time.
Nor do I. For the record I'm merely playing devil's advocate in many respects but again I don't like new legislation being passed, especially in regards to the internet. If we blink our eyes our remaining civil liberties and freedoms we take for granted will be extinguished. Not to say that spammers should be necessarily defended, but I am not aware of any law on the books, as it were, that inherently preclude a spammer from sending spam. Again, quote or paste a link if you're privy to any such law. | |
| | | | |
See 10 replies to this post | |
| 
ImFixingIt
join:2001-12-11
Providence, RI
| Not only that, but those sending junk/spam mail should be prohibited from a) using the BCC field, b) required to have their actual domain listed, and c) prohibited from using open relays.
But reality check reports that the majority of spammers are fully aware that they are commiting malicious acts, abuse relays, etc. Thus, my only offered suggestion would be to require a mandatory jail time of 5 years, smashing rocks into small stones. And then maybe apply a fine of $5 for every recipient they spammed.
I also feel that the feds should require foreign aid be tied to incidents of foreign-sourced spamming. If foreign countries want to play with the big boys in this day and age then require them to clean up their own mess first.
--
With mistakes like me its any wonder anything gets fixed! | |
| | 
gnoles
join:2001-05-16
Cleveland, AL
| I don't have problems with people wanting to advertise their product, but I DON'T want to carry the costs of their efforts. I'm not a fan of telemarketing, SPAM, or even the tons of postal offers I get daily. But at least with a postal offering I can return an empty envelope and increase the costs (albeit a few pennies). With telemarketing I can place the phone down and walk away (again, some costs are carried by the people who are trying to make a sale). With spam, the costs are very small in relation to the above.
I compare spam with the junk faxes of the 80's. The majority of the cost is carried by the receiver and I am not comfortable sorting through a sea of spam that took little thought and even less money to produce. I usually speak with my wallet though, if you spam me and I'm interested in your product, I'm going to find another source. No use in rewarding this type of behavior.
Maybe it's just me, I don't equate free speech with "I must listen!" I doubt it's listed in the constitution as such, but I have the right to completely ignore anyone's free speech, no matter what material is being presented.
--
!Illegitimi Non Carborundum! | |
| TomLe8
join:2002-02-01
Modesto, CA
| Get Privacy Manager to rid Telemarketing
Tom | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Simple to regulate * It should be illegal (of the postal fraud kind of illegal) to send email that has its origin obscured or faked. It should also be (highly) illegal to hijack a mail server for the sending of spam. Either of these cases should be easy for ISPs companies and users to prosecute on in the courts and fines on all parties involved in the spam (product company, affiliate network and spammer) should be sufficient to encourage prosecution efforts.
* it should be illegal to send email without referring to a national opt out email list - a trivial service that the FTC runs using our tax dollars that maintains a list of email addresses that do not want unsolicited email. The opt-out list should provide an easy to use API etc to allow spammers to remove names that are on it efficiently.
* it should be illegal to send email without an additional local remove-me link included .. if this link exists but is found to be non functional for an extended period of time, a fine would be applied to the spamming company. All remove-me requests should be acknowledged with an electronic receipt the user can keep.
* companies offering products that are sold over spam should not escape fines if the products are spammed and the product pays any kind of referral, click-through or other affiliate marketing incentives. The fines will fund the enforcement efforts. This clause should help reduce spam sent from offshore servers for local products.
If the current problem was translated to the real world, our post boxes would be over-stuffed with catalogs we never asked for from companies we never dealt with -- this would make the authorities jump. Why are they not jumping just because its email boxes? because the relevant officials are too old and fuddy-duddy to use much email themselves? | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
|
·
·
·
Which 4?