Posted on 01/08/2006 7:37:18 AM PST by devane617
Neal Boortz ask the question in his Neal's Nuze section this week: When will Spam be stopped, or become less? http://boortz.com/nuze/200601/01052006.html#spam
With all the tough talk I see no progress and maybe more Spam than ever. I suspect the answer is "money". Follow the money to the companies that combat Spam and you will find an industry that has been built for combating Spam, and Viruses.
Oh, I love spam. I'll have the spam, eggs, bacon, and spam.
Why not post from Neil's article, then post your comment, with the proper link to the article?
Spam? Yes, your messages is sorta like that.
I choose to post just as I did. If you disagree, then move along to a thread you can agree with.
You may want to look for a better spam blocker, I' am down to just a few each day.
My mouse finger is starting to atrophy from lack of deleting exercise .
baked beans and spam. good stuff
:)
We can make the business of spammers unprofitable by, en mass, wasting their time (and, of course, a bit of each of ours). Make it impossible for them to tell the difference between the real dupes responding to their spam, and the reverse-spammers flooding them with faux requests and incomplete orders.
The ONLY reason they are spamming is because they ARE making $$ from it.
The only way to stop spam is to charge to send an email.
The most idiotic idea this year.
Microsoft has/had an interesting solution to spam that runs along the lines of your solution: Every time you send e-mail, the receiving e-mail server refuses the e-mail unless your e-mail server provides the solution to a complex mathematical problem. IOW, the sending e-mail server must use computing horsepower to solve the problem and provide the receiving server the correct answer. The whole process might take a few seconds of processor time. For the two, three, four e-mails you and I send every day this would be no problem; in fact, we wouldn't notice. But for the spammer, who's sending millions of e-mails a day, it would bring his business down because he wouldn't have the computing horsepower to keep up with his volume of sent e-mail.
I don't know where this solution lies today. I heard about it about a year ago.
I just change my email address every few days. That seems to do the trick.
That's an old canard already, and no more true for wear. It costs money to send a fax but fax machines still get spammed like there is no tomorrow.
If you charge for sending email, what will happen in actuality is that the spammers will make zero change to what they already do, and the people whose addresses they spoof as the return addresses will end up with bills for millions upon millions of emails that they didn't send.
The way to stop spam is to institute draconian punishment for the ones we do catch, 20 year sentences for individuals and total confiscation of the assets of companies which use spam as advertising.
They'd just add another processor to handle that. It seems to be a fleeting solution dependent on current processing speeds.
That raises an interesting point. Can one be pro-capitalism and anti-spam at the same time? I wouldn't want to destroy someone's spamming business as long as the inconvenience on the receiving end is minimal to none.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.