OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law

J

Jim Thompson

Guest
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and
suggest that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
Jim Thompson wrote:
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and
suggest that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
CC your congressman with every opt-out you send!;-)

--
7 days!


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
In sci.electronics.design Jim Thompson <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and
suggest that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)
Click to expand...
Can non-US residents opt-out (of US generated spam)?
 
[This followup was posted to sci.electronics.design and a copy was
sent to the cited author.]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:51:48 GMT, mike.terrell@earthlink.net
said...
Jim Thompson wrote:

Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and
suggest that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)

...Jim Thompson

CC your congressman with every opt-out you send!;-)


That's as good as Jim posting all those state rep's e-mail addys.
Click to expand...
Excellent.

Mike
 
In article <p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@4ax.com>,
invalid@invalid.invalid mentioned...
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.
Click to expand...
You know, Jim, I had a lot more respect for you before you said that.

Think about this: Laws don't legalize anything, they restrict what
was not restricted previously.

In case you hadn't noticed, there were absolutely no restrictions
whatsoever at the federal level on spamming up until now. So how can
any law 'legalize' or legitimize' something which was totally
unrestricted (i.e. legal and legitimate) before? I competely fail to
understand the logic behind your statement.

Furthermore, don't parrot what the hard-core absolutists and naysayers
in the anti-spam community are saying. We've waited for more than
five years to get something done at the federal level, and it may take
some time to get something effective implemented. Between the legal
and technological methods, something will ewventually get done to stop
this scourge that has overtaken the net. Eventually we'll see those
spammers in jail and out of business. As for Linford, he, a Brit,
should mind his own business and keep out of the political and
legislative affairs of the U.S.

Remember, I'm a Californian, and I would've liked to see the recently
signed 'opt-in only' law go into effect come Jan 1st. But I would
have had little hope that anything would become of it, since it has
been five years since the first California laws went into effect, and
they have had almost zero enforcement. :-(

Have you read SB877? If not, I suggest you do. It has some good
points. And you also have to realize that the FTC has to promulgate
regulations to implement this law. So you may see some changes as
time goes on.

If you want to discuss this further, you will have to reply to me by
email, because I will not read or answer any further of this nonsense.
See my .sig for email address and instructions.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and
suggest that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote (in <p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@
4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Thu, 18
Dec 2003:
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and suggest
that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)
Click to expand...
Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is there to
benefit BUSINESS.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
 
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:37:18 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote (in <p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@
4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Thu, 18
Dec 2003:
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and suggest
that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)

Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is there to
benefit BUSINESS.
Click to expand...
I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-in-your-face. I was one of the first
to sign up for the Do-Not-Call list. I got two or three calls after
that... chewed them out so royally I've not had another call.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:40:27 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dark
Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@4ax.com>,
invalid@invalid.invalid mentioned...
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

You know, Jim, I had a lot more respect for you before you said that.

Think about this: Laws don't legalize anything, they restrict what
was not restricted previously.

In case you hadn't noticed, there were absolutely no restrictions
whatsoever at the federal level on spamming up until now. So how can
any law 'legalize' or legitimize' something which was totally
unrestricted (i.e. legal and legitimate) before? I competely fail to
understand the logic behind your statement.

[snip]
Click to expand...

The way I read it everyone gets a free shot at spamming you, provided
they have an Opt-Out method as part of the E-mail. So I foresee a
torrent of US-originated spam crap.

As for foreign-originated spam, it has no effect whatsoever.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:q2g4uvc2ha0k83cdme2mt6pdjcav119115@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:37:18 +0000, John Woodgate
: <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
:
: >I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
: ><invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote (in
<p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@
: >4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law',
on Thu, 18
: >Dec 2003:
: >>Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and
Dubya has
: >>signed into law "Can Spam"....
: >>
: >>http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf
: >>
: >>This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a
whole
: >>torrent of spam.
: >>
: >>I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators
and suggest
: >>that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)
: >
: >Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is
there to
: >benefit BUSINESS.
:
: I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-in-your-face. I was one of the
first
: to sign up for the Do-Not-Call list. I got two or three calls
after
: that... chewed them out so royally I've not had another call.

First they have to drum up a lot of extra
SPAM emails, then they can offer GRANTS from
our tax money for people to start up those
new DO-NOT-SPAM list businesses. ;-)

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/25/03
 
John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote (in <p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@
4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Thu, 18
Dec 2003:
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and suggest
that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)

Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is there to
benefit BUSINESS.
Click to expand...
Of course, a minor gain for some BUSINESSES is far more important than
a minor gain for most PEOPLE. After all, we live in a society of
businesses, not people.


Tim
--
The .sig is dead.
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote (in <q2g4uvc2ha0k83cdme2mt6pdjcav119115@
4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Thu, 18
Dec 2003:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:37:18 +0000, John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contra
spam.yuk> wrote:

[snip]

Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is there to
benefit BUSINESS.

I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-in-your-face. I was one of the first to
sign up for the Do-Not-Call list. I got two or three calls after
that... chewed them out so royally I've not had another call.
Click to expand...
But you expressed a leftist view, so we can't possibly believe you, can
we? (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group
sex without the y on the end]> wrote (in <qvn4uv8n2a68g71e52kv1027esp5ms
9los@4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on
Fri, 19 Dec 2003:

Of course, a minor gain for some BUSINESSES is far more important than a
minor gain for most PEOPLE. After all, we live in a society of
businesses, not people.
Click to expand...
Well, you are of course being ironic. But it's not a clear-cut issue. If
you benefit a business, you benefit to some extent everyone who works
for it, and that's often a LOT of people. A balance is needed, and
unlimited spam isn't at the balance point.

If opt-out means that you get an initial message and you can be *sure*
of getting no more from that source, it's practicable. You can't have a
full opt-in system, because you wouldn't get the first message unless
you opted-in in advance. Not easy to do that!
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
 
Virtually all spam sent right now has an opt out method. However,
the spammers use it to make a new database of "live" addresses.

So, how can one dare to use the opt out, knowing that doing so will
just validate their email address in some spammer's database?

-Chuck

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group
sex without the y on the end]> wrote (in <qvn4uv8n2a68g71e52kv1027esp5ms
9los@4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on
Fri, 19 Dec 2003:


Of course, a minor gain for some BUSINESSES is far more important than a
minor gain for most PEOPLE. After all, we live in a society of
businesses, not people.


Well, you are of course being ironic. But it's not a clear-cut issue. If
you benefit a business, you benefit to some extent everyone who works
for it, and that's often a LOT of people. A balance is needed, and
unlimited spam isn't at the balance point.

If opt-out means that you get an initial message and you can be *sure*
of getting no more from that source, it's practicable. You can't have a
full opt-in system, because you wouldn't get the first message unless
you opted-in in advance. Not easy to do that!
Click to expand...
 
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:05:42 -0700, invalid@invalid.invalid said...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:37:18 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote (in <p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@
4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Thu, 18
Dec 2003:
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and suggest
that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)

Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is there to
benefit BUSINESS.

I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-in-your-face. I was one of the first
to sign up for the Do-Not-Call list. I got two or three calls after
that... chewed them out so royally I've not had another call.

...Jim Thompson

It wasn't you're chewing them out that did it, necessarily. You
Click to expand...
just got your blood pressure up, maybe. If you read the Atty Gen
info when you signed up, it (ours) said that it takes up to 3
months to get processed, that, or the law is that telejocks have to
update their lists every quarter.

You can still get calls from people who you do business with like
SBC. You have to ask them to put you on their DNC list.

BRs,
Mike
 
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:26:13 +0000, jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk
said...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote (in <q2g4uvc2ha0k83cdme2mt6pdjcav119115@
4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Thu, 18
Dec 2003:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:37:18 +0000, John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contra
spam.yuk> wrote:

[snip]

Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is there to
benefit BUSINESS.

I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-in-your-face. I was one of the first to
sign up for the Do-Not-Call list. I got two or three calls after
that... chewed them out so royally I've not had another call.

But you expressed a leftist view, so we can't possibly believe you, can
we? (;-)

Right. We want pictures.
Click to expand...
 
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:31:57 +0000, jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk
said...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group
sex without the y on the end]> wrote (in <qvn4uv8n2a68g71e52kv1027esp5ms
9los@4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on
Fri, 19 Dec 2003:

Of course, a minor gain for some BUSINESSES is far more important than a
minor gain for most PEOPLE. After all, we live in a society of
businesses, not people.

Well, you are of course being ironic. But it's not a clear-cut issue. If
you benefit a business, you benefit to some extent everyone who works
for it, and that's often a LOT of people. A balance is needed, and
unlimited spam isn't at the balance point.

If opt-out means that you get an initial message and you can be *sure*
of getting no more from that source, it's practicable. You can't have a
full opt-in system, because you wouldn't get the first message unless
you opted-in in advance. Not easy to do that!

As much as I hate getting most first messages, you're right. Within
Click to expand...
say 30mi of here, we have 2 mailing businesses. One was supposed to
have folded by now. They send out AOL CDs and all that other crap
you get in the mail. I don't mind getting a 50% discount on a oil
change/lube job. I'll never get the coupon out of our poor excuse
for a newspaper either 'cause I can barely tolerate reading the
front page.

But if I need viagra, I'd rather google and opt-in. WHere's the
happy medium?

BRs,
Mike
 
"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@4ax.com...
Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and
suggest that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)
Click to expand...
The only practical solution I see, is that ISP should charge
1 cent for each email sent. I wouldn't mind paying 1 cent
for each email I sent.

What I really don't understand are the spammers that sent
messages like 'en.large your pen;s' etc, these guys ought
to be shot in the neck, cut to pieces and fed to the dogs.

I'm getting about 80 spam emails per day now.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)
 
Hey Frank,

There are lots of easy solutions to spam that don't require a tax.

They all involve upping the bar a bit for the spammers. For instance,
instead of using the old smtp (redundant redundancy) mail protocol, use
a system where the originator has to go to a trusted website to send you
a message. The website would use a simple challenge to make sure you
are human (eg. read the multicolor numbers in a picture of a field of
red and yellow flowers.) If you cannot correctly answer the challenge,
you cannot send the message.

Think laterally, my friend.

-Chuck

Frank Bemelman wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@4ax.com...

Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has
signed into law "Can Spam"....

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf

This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole
torrent of spam.

I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and
suggest that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-)


The only practical solution I see, is that ISP should charge
1 cent for each email sent. I wouldn't mind paying 1 cent
for each email I sent.

What I really don't understand are the spammers that sent
messages like 'en.large your pen;s' etc, these guys ought
to be shot in the neck, cut to pieces and fed to the dogs.

I'm getting about 80 spam emails per day now.
Click to expand...
 
"Chuck Harris" <cfharris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3fe45021$0$4753$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
: Hey Frank,
:
: There are lots of easy solutions to spam that don't require a
tax.
:
: They all involve upping the bar a bit for the spammers. For
instance,
: instead of using the old smtp (redundant redundancy) mail
protocol, use
: a system where the originator has to go to a trusted website to
send you
: a message. The website would use a simple challenge to make
sure you
: are human (eg. read the multicolor numbers in a picture of a
field of
: red and yellow flowers.) If you cannot correctly answer the
challenge,
: you cannot send the message.
:
: Think laterally, my friend.
:
: -Chuck
:
: Frank Bemelman wrote:
: > "Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> schreef in bericht
: > news:p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@4ax.com...
: >
: >>Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and
Dubya has
: >>signed into law "Can Spam"....
: >>
: >>http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/S877CanSpam.pdf
: >>
: >>This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a
whole
: >>torrent of spam.
: >>
: >>I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators
and
: >>suggest that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy
;-)
: >
: >
: > The only practical solution I see, is that ISP should charge
: > 1 cent for each email sent. I wouldn't mind paying 1 cent
: > for each email I sent.
: >
: > What I really don't understand are the spammers that sent
: > messages like 'en.large your pen;s' etc, these guys ought
: > to be shot in the neck, cut to pieces and fed to the dogs.
: >
: > I'm getting about 80 spam emails per day now.

One thing you can try is nothing. Simply delete them for
a time, and soon they will remove you by default. Also,
if you Opt-Out, your email addy may be added to other
email lists which can be sold to other vendors. I've been
doing the above, and get maybe 3-4 spam emails per day.
None of them from new vendors. These will soon die off
and I'll be free until I request info for something and
get added to another list.

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/26/03
 
In news:3fe45021$0$4753$61fed72c@news.rcn.com (Chuck Harris):
Hey Frank,

There are lots of easy solutions to spam that don't require a tax.

They all involve upping the bar a bit for the spammers. For instance,
instead of using the old smtp (redundant redundancy) mail protocol, use
a system where the originator has to go to a trusted website to send you
a message. The website would use a simple challenge to make sure you
are human (eg. read the multicolor numbers in a picture of a field of
red and yellow flowers.) If you cannot correctly answer the challenge,
you cannot send the message.

Think laterally, my friend.

-Chuck
Click to expand...
A certain national ISP limits the number of mails that can be sent in an
effort to control spammers. You'd think that would be a good thing, until
you read the fine print... per connection instance, 20 messages can be
queued for sending, with 200 recipients each. So the smart spammer just
changes the settings in their spamming software to overcome these types of
limitations. And that's still 4000 recipients per send! Some limitation,
huh?

I wouldn't mind in the least if we moved from POP and SMTP to SPOP and
SSMTP (secure variants?) and had a random challenge like you describe.
Problem is, some little 3rd-world punk with too much time on their hands is
going to find a way around it. E-Mail tampering/solicitation would probably
have to be considered a federal offense before the problem could be
eliminated.

I heard that up to 60% of the bandwidth used on the 'net is from email...
60%! imagine how much faster things would run if we could drop that down to
1% or even 5%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top