Skip to comments.
Internet Is Losing Ground in Battle Against Spam
NY Times ^
| April 22, 2003
| SAUL HANSELL
Posted on 04/22/2003 5:43:55 AM PDT by Pharmboy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
Always an interesting topic for Freepers.
1
posted on
04/22/2003 5:43:55 AM PDT
by
Pharmboy
To: Pharmboy
I object to having to push a delete button to get rid of mail I didn't SOLICIT or ask to receive in the first place. When most of the e-mail you get is spam, it makes a lot of people wary about taking to family and friends over the web. There are legitimate ways to do business and make money online but if you have to cheat, lie, and con potential customers to get business you shouldn't be working from home, period. No one likes spammers and when you consider spam pitches products no one is interested in buying or need, people are just turned off. And this damages those who are trying to make an online living without spamming. In the eyes of netizens, every spammer who brazenly floods their mailboxes simply doesn't care that personal privacy is being destroyed and the free and trusting nature of the netizen culture is being pushed one step closer to extinction. The spammers are the Huns and Vandals of the modern Internet.
2
posted on
04/22/2003 5:55:48 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Pharmboy
The anti-spam orginizatons like Brightmail (Dullmail to those of us who use it) have a vested interest in the continuaton of spam. Without spam and without spam growing, they would be out of business. Talk about a conflict of interest.
Best way is for ISP's to require a special application and checks for any user who sends more than 100 or so e-mails a day.
To: Pharmboy
According to a recent article in a network rag I read, expect email spam to dissapear within the next two years. There are many techniques used to try to filter spam: keyword searching, black and white lists, hashes/signatures, heuristitcs, Reverse DNS lookups, header analysis, image scanning... but one in particular is gonna shake out this "industry". Bayesian filtering is ideally suited to run on the client machine, and tailer itself to the individual user's email, and shut out almost all of the offending crap. The best thing about it is its adaptive nature, so that spammers cannot just figure out what gets thru, and take advantage of it... if they did, the bayesian software would adapt to their new strategy, and start filtering it.
Now that the technique to do this is becoming known, expect products in the next year or two to take advantage of it.
4
posted on
04/22/2003 6:03:16 AM PDT
by
C210N
To: Pharmboy
Notice how frequently Ah, Oh helL is mentioned. When it and its ilk - yayhoo, earthtklink, zeronet and all of the other FREE services - are run off then we'll get the internet back. Until then I am reminded a hundred times per day - each time I rat out another spammer - of the costs of unprincipled capitalism.
5
posted on
04/22/2003 6:03:19 AM PDT
by
dhuffman@awod.com
(The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
To: Blue Screen of Death
I agree. People who send more than 100 pieces of e-mail a day should be charged for the cost of sending, processing, and scubbing their rejected e-mail. That should cut down on the flood of spam rather dramatically. No legitimate advertiser in the real world gets to send business promotional material for free.
6
posted on
04/22/2003 6:03:51 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Pharmboy
Confronted by an increasing number of individuals, businesses and Internet service providers using software meant to identify and discard unwanted junk e-mail commonly known as spam Ms. Sachs has been forced to become more creative in her marketing pitches. The subject line on her credit e-mail, for example, now reads "get a fresh start."
The spammers quickly caught on to this technique, however. So they have varied their messages morphing, they call it often by simply appending random words or characters, so the filtering systems no longer see millions of identical solicitations.
At the same time, e-mail users now receive spam that is not only unwanted but cryptic, too. In an attempt to avoid automatic filters that search for certain phrases, marketers offer, for example, "Her bal V1agra" and ways to make "F*A*S*T C*A*S*H." This is clearly an attempt to evade the security of the target computer, and should be punished under the computer "cracking" laws. (Kevin Mitnick went to jail for five years. Since I'm in a very good mood today, I'll consider than an acceptable penalty for a first-offending spammer.)
7
posted on
04/22/2003 6:03:55 AM PDT
by
steve-b
To: Pharmboy

Two faces down, 53 to go. Anybody know a good manufacturer of custom playing cards?
8
posted on
04/22/2003 6:05:52 AM PDT
by
steve-b
To: goldstategop
People who send more than 100 pieces of e-mail a day should be charged for the cost of sending, processing, and scubbing their rejected e-mail.
That is a good idea. I could help out with 400-500 a day, and I don't use AOL or any of the other free services.
Becki
9
posted on
04/22/2003 6:06:10 AM PDT
by
Becki
(Pray continually for our leaders and our troops!)
To: steve-b
Plus confiscate the spammers illicit profits and apply it to the cost of dealing with their junk mail so the rest of us don't need to bear the cost of paying high internet access fees for them.
10
posted on
04/22/2003 6:06:13 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
Any legit business should welcome such a law.
This tells you where these people are...
11
posted on
04/22/2003 6:09:10 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: Pharmboy
Ms. Sachs, a former producer with Geraldo Rivera...Insert joke here.
Anyway, this article just proves that Ms Sachs and Mr Ahdoot are very, very stupid people. There are a lot of extremely angry people out there that will now be aiming spam at THEIR private email accounts, signing them up for magazine subscriptions, etc ... and they deserve every bit of what they get.
12
posted on
04/22/2003 6:13:17 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: Pharmboy
I'm not a violent man (despite the "Dentist" moniker), but if I ever get my hands on either of those spammers they will learn what pain really is!
13
posted on
04/22/2003 6:16:39 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(So..... This is Virginia..... where are all the virgins?)
To: Pharmboy
I'm using SpamPal, with the Bayesian filter installed. It works pretty well, but I have to send spam to the Deleted folder and check it for genuine messages. I have Outlook Express set to delete permanently on closing. That saves me from having to look at most of the messages or the porn when it's deleted.
I notice this article neglects to mention pornography. No doubt Howell Raines thinks that porn is constitutionally protected under the fifth amendment and shouldn't be touched.
SpamPal is freeware, advertising free, but the developer asks for a small donation if you like it:
http://www.spampal.org/
14
posted on
04/22/2003 6:16:44 AM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Blue Screen of Death
I think the solution is rather simple: Make open mail relays illegal. And to stop people from merely moving their email harassment operations outside US borders, make it illegal for US internet companies to accept ANY connections from sites that have open relays ... no web connections, no telnet, no nothing. Institute a fine just high enough to make it worth the ISPs' while to insure compliance ... say $250 per violation if an illegal relay remains accessible more than 7 days after a complaint is lodged.
It would take a few months to implement, but in the end it would reduce spam by 95-98%.
Oh yeah, two other laws would be needed: 1) Anyone who sends unsolicited commercial email gets fined $250 per email. 2) No ISP could offer trial accounts (this means you, AOL) that allowed users to send more than five emails per hour.
15
posted on
04/22/2003 6:20:43 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: Pharmboy
It is time to charge for email. So many a month for free to accomodate private use and each one after that would be billed at $0.10 or whatever.
When you have something for free, it will be abused. With spam at 40% of email traffic and 90% of what I get in my email box, it is time to do something about it.
Charging for it will put a stop to much of it.
16
posted on
04/22/2003 6:25:37 AM PDT
by
BJungNan
To: Pharmboy
Spammers are so annoying, because they are so cheap, sleazy, and evasive. I may look at a piece of physical junk mail, because someone has at least considered it worth the expense to send it. But spam can be sent virtually for free, which vastly lowers the bar.
17
posted on
04/22/2003 6:26:30 AM PDT
by
drlevy88
To: Pharmboy
Perhaps the best spam filter on the market is the one included with Apple's free Mail client for MacOSX. It's superb and constantly improves in spam recognition.
Combine that with Apple's new Safari browser--which blocks pop-ups and is compact and elegant and faster than IE--and the Mac platform's near-absence of viruses and you have hassle-free Internet surfing and communications.
To: Becki
100 pieces a day is a bit restrictive. Once a month I do a mailing of about 120 for a community newsletter and monthly meeting. Lettle C program: Sends each individually so I can get bad addresses and not give away others on the list.
Also easy C program: Get the headers off your server (presuming you don't use AOL, but people that slow aren't here), delete the obvious there, and then open up your favorite e-mail client for stuff you want to look at. It's working so far, but is getting worse. Pretty soon, I'll be doing more heavyweight filtering.
I shouldn't have to. And it's becoming noticeably higher volume.
To: Pharmboy
Seems to me they could go after the websites that the emails lead you to or shut down the 1-800 numbers as a defense against spam.
20
posted on
04/22/2003 6:30:19 AM PDT
by
trebb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson