Posted on 04/11/2005 10:12:57 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Well there is always a reverse lookup on the mail server sending it out. 9/10 times spammers dont use a legit from domain for mail service.
but by blocking 25 they are still doing that. ISP's (some) have policies that forbid people from setting up DNS, DHCP, HTTP, and other services..
That is in addition to deciding whether it's even feasible.
Spam is, essentially, broadcasting on the Internet and not a two way communication (though one is desired by the sender for commercial reasons). It is also an inconvenience and a burden to the public. I see no compelling First Amendment or free market arguments against requiring a spam company from buying a federal license and reporting the amount of broadcasting by e-mail that they do and be so taxed.
Look, if spam hadn't been so intrusive and vulgar, no one would care, but any process that abuses the public can expect to be resisted. Spam should get what it deserves. Death by taxation.
True, but that would just change their tactics. The trouble with "tax-the-spam" ideas is that this is all computer-based. Spam itself is computer-based. That makes any effort at controlling it via gov't very iffy at best, and dangerous at worst. Tactics always change, and spam will always go over the wires.
The best way (IMHO) to eliminate spam is to educate the end user and prevent any clicks or consumerism of the products/services being hawked. Make it a waste of time and effort to send spam, and it goes away.
And since the tax system in the US is a guilty until you prove yourself innocent, this suggestion will penalize the victims.
In the words of another American, "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."
Do you honestly think the government needs yet another tax revenue stream? Don't you think the goverment already takes enough of our money?
I don't either. However, human nature being what it is and willing to abuse any process that is not regulated in some manner (Enron comes to mind), I'd rather that those companies that traffic in spam apply for an Internet broadcasting license, according to volume, and pay for their annoyance. Look, if you IT guys are smart enough to get around, over and through all this spam and spyware, then you're smart enough to design a tax plan that taxes only the broadcasters and not legitimate e-mail. Physician, heal thyself, or Congress will do it for you and it will hurt.
How do you propose the government tax offshore spammers?
Don't you think the government already takes in enough of our hard earned money?
Just what do you think an email tax is?
Govenment is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem. The private solutions are working. In my experience, spam is on the wane. This is just so much hype so that the government can stick it's nose into the tent and quite frankly I'd rather keep the stinky and greedy government out of my tent, thank you very much.
As bad as spammers are, the government is 1000-times worse.
I am sure that the government of the "offshore" spammer would be more willing than the USA to tax its spammers.
Don't you think the government already takes in enough of our hard earned money?
Yes. The gov't takes too much of our "hard earned money", But I don't consider the earnings of a spammer to be on par with other occupations. Tax spammers until there are no taxes to collect.
Im against the tax, just though I would point out there are ways tim impliment it.
What they're talking about is blocking outgoing traffic that attempts to connect to port 25 on any server outside the ISP's network. That would effectively shut down the zombies because all mail servers listen on port 25 for incoming mail.
My problem with this is that it would be a major PITA for anyone who operates his own sever (for mailing lists or whatever). Instead of blocking port 25, I'd rather have my ISP use the Open Relay Database and other blacklists to block traffic coming from known zombie or spambot servers. The reverse DNS lookup is also effective against spam with forged headers- in my company this technique alone shuts out well over half the junk.
Bingo! this is the number one argument against taxes as a solution. These guys are off shore, and anonymous how exacty do yuo tax or tarif them? This is where blocking 25 will be useful because at least then ISP's will have a fighting chance of blocking the real spammers. Right now its not even worth trying because so many bots are on the local subnet..
And quite frankly, I'd like to keep the stinky greedy spams for porn, bogus MLM schemes, "phishing" and spoofing" out of my computer, thank you very much. Oh, you reply, there are programs for that. OK says I, I have purchased these programs, at my expense, which is a form of "Spam Tax" and the rogue IT's manage to find way around those. Spam IS being taxed, its the consumer that's paying the tax, not the spammer.
1) Spam is almost never traceable, it usually comes from a bunk address...
2) Spam that can be traced often comes from unwitting people whos PC's are infected, you will be hammering them
3) Given the volume of spam sending out 1K times that would do nothing but bring many ISP's and maybe the internet to its knees..
this is the problem, when you infect millions of desktop PC's an RBL is no longer going to work. Given the fact most high speed nets are DHCP you could find yourself blocked because the guy before you was a bot. If anything white list would work if not for the fact maintenance would be damn near impossible..
The problem is that spam and other Internet problems are like AIDS. There is no cure and it is spread by human behavior.
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.