Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ISP Sues Spammer

CmdrTaco posted more than 15 years ago | from the this-ought-to-get-interesting dept.

Spam 125

Stephen writes "UK ISP Virgin Net is suing a former subscriber for loss of business caused by his alleged spam. " The subscriber supposedly spammed a quarter of a million people (advertising his email address list no less!) and got the ISP on the blacklist. It'll be interesting to see where this one goes. I personally think that we should legalize spam, but require the word 'SPAM' or 'AD' to appear in th subject so we can procmail it out. Or just set our sendmails up to discard it. And I think failure to clearly label spam should be punishable by death.

cancel ×

125 comments

NOOOOOoooo...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924858)

And who will buy me the faster mail server I'll need now that it needs to scan the body of the message instead of the envelope information?

Allowing the market to FUNCTION (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924859)


Sending spam creates the problem that the ISP has a major load on its systems . . . We all demand from our ISP that the mail we sent is delivered without problems.

So demand that in your contract. If you don't have a contract, they owe you nothing. In any case, it's the ISP's problem, not the spammer. If they can't cope with running their own systems, the market will get rid of them.


n the event that the law allows spam, the ISP will probably include a no-spam claim in its licence to the users.

Restraint of trade? Oh, yes. Contemptible. If you hate the free market so much, move to China. They're still clinging to your obsolete socialist ideals there.


It will cost the ISP a lot of money to allow spam in the regions of: "new equipment" and "traffic"

The market will take care of it.

In fact, that's the answer to all of your whimpering worries: The market will take care of it. If you don't like the result, the problem is yours, not the market's. It means that you're demanding a free ride, because you simply aren't capable of competing fairly, in which case you don't deserve any sympathy.


Now that leaves just the problem that death sentences aren't legal everywhere

Government coercion by violence. The last resort of the unfit. It always comes down to that with you people, doesn't it?

Yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924860)

Keep them from breeding! Gotta keep that gene pool clean!

SPAM doesnt do an ISP good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924861)

I have had an instance where I received 100,000 peices of bounce mail from some a bulk email company and it stopped an important message to be delayed by 4 hours .... the message was telling the person that there was an important meeting they had to be at 1 hour before he got the message.

If the information is _that_ time critical, use a phone. I have no sympathy for this kind of nonsense. Email should never be used for time-critical information...as I keep telling my users.

Tillman (where the heck is that password?)

Why not tax mass Unsolicited EMailings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924862)

At least in the US, the absolute LAST thing we need is another tax from the IRS, or another thousand pages to the tax code (which something as simple as this would likely require)

Re: SPAM doesnt do an ISP good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924863)

You are right. In Germany one of the big isp's called t-online (no.1/2 before or behind aol), who's mailserver crashed under the load of spams!
that was nice. they needed 2 days(!) to filter all the spam out of the system. after that they installed (i'm not sure of that) some spam-filtering facility...

How about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924864)

1) Make spam Legal

2) Make it illegal for a spammer to relay through anyone else's mail server (With fines of something like $100 per instance or $10 million, whichever is smaller, which will be paid to the companies whose mail servers are violated in this fashion.)

3) Require the spammer to inform his ISP that it's his intent to spam.

4) Require the spammer to purchase his own bandwith. If he wants to buy a T1 and spam from there, fine. Under no circumstances should he be allowed to spam from an ISP shell account or across a non-dedicated modem line.

5) Reserve a class B address block for spammers. Anyone who informs his ISP that he plans to spam must negotiate with a central authority in charge of this block for a static IP address. The central authority can charge whatever they want for addresses in this block.

6) Make spamming from outside this IP address block punishable by jail time.

7) Make unregistered spamming punishable by jail time.

8) Institute a variable spam tax. Anyone who gets a spam should be compesated for their time and bandwidth. At the end of the year, a sum should be calculated and divided among all registered spammers. Perhaps some metering system could be put into place so a spammer who only sends out 100 messages in a year pays less than one who sends out a million.

Benefits:

1) Anyone who doesn't want spam can simply add the class B address to their filters.

2) Only 64K addresses allocated to spammers.

3) Tracking spammers becomes simple. Closing down the illegal pyramid schemes becomes simple.

4) Lots of spammers go to jail or go bankrupt or both.

5) Spammers pay for their own bandwidth.

6) All usenet feeds could give the class B spam block the kiss of death, thus returning usenet to a usable state.

PROPOSAL: impose QUOTAS on e-mail and usenet posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924865)

Think about it.

If each user is only allowed to send out so much e-mail per day, and to post only so much to usenet per day, and the quota is fairly small, and is the same for everyone, and there's no option for a higher quota, not even if you're willing to pay for it...

1) Spam will no longer be worth the trouble to the spammer.

2) Flame wars will no longer be worth the trouble to the flamers.

3) Usenet posting in general will be of higher quality, as people are motivated only to post what is worth posting, and to express themselves succinctly.

4) There's no need for a human moderator, or any sort of penalties. Implement the quotas in the server software, and enforcement is all automatic.

5) With no humans involved in enforcement, absolute fairness and impartiality is ensured!

6) No need for spam cancelling kludges, and the resources they consume. Spammers will simply give up in frustration, once they realize they can't post enough to make it worthwhile.

The Realtime Blackhole List (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924866)

I remember this spam and the fact that Virgin were extremely clueless about it. I complained many times, from another ISP in the UK.

It took them several months to even get to grips with their spam problem, no wonder they got blacklisted.

Death to the spammers (a function to do so) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924867)

I think they should be given a slow ugly death (much akin to the drive that my mail spools resided on before sucumbing to the riggers of spam).

// don't worry, they won't be returning... so were
// safe using void...
// subhuman = derived class of human
// reference variables are your friend :-)
void kill_spammer(subhuman &spammer)
{
// first a sanity check...
if(spammer.mailinghabits != SPAMMER)
{
return;
}
// better get our stuff ready
torture_device pianowire,gallos;
pianowire = PIANO_WIRE;
gallos = GALLOS_HANGING;
gallos.height = 14; // 14' gallos
pianowire.length = 6; // 6' length of wire
pianowire.attach_end = gallos.crossbeam;
if(spammer.gender == MALE)
{
pianowire.attach_start = spammer.genitalia;
}else{
torture_device fishhook;
fishook.size = LARGE;
fishook.attachtype = IMPALE;
fishook.attachpoint = spammer.genitalia;
pianowire.attach_start = fishhook.eyehole;
}
worldtime(1200); // let world run for 20 mins
if(spammer.lifestate == DEAD)
{ // darn, they kicked the bucket
return;
}
worldobject board,nails[4];
// creature object type, size and attitude
creature ants ={REDANTS,LARGE,PISSED};
board.type = WOOD;
board.dimensions = {12,12,8}; //12x12x8
board.infested = ants;
// put the spammer ajacent to the board (whitch is
// infested with pissed off fire ants
board.ajacent = spammer;
// 4 rusty iron nine inch nails
for(int i=0;i3;i++) nails[i] = {IRON,RUSTY,9};
// nail arms and legs to board
for(int i=0;i{
nail[i].attachsurface[0]=spammer.limb[i];
nail[i].attachsurface[1]=board.surface[1];
}
ants.enemy = spammer;
// we wouldn't want them lying still since they
// are nailed to a board with rusty nails while
// being attacked by fire ants.
spammer.nervous_system = SPASMS;
spammer.eyelids = OPEN;
spammer.mouth = OPEN;
worldtime(3600); // let time lie for 1 hour;
if(spammer.lifestate != DEAD)
{ // what the hell!!! DIE DIE DIE
// lets burst their large intestine
spammer.largeintestine.pressure = 120;
vechile truck;
worldobject rope,racetrack;
racetrack.surface = BROKEN_GLASS;
rope.attachstart = truck.hitch;
rope.attachend = nail[0];
int i;
// lets flip the board
// over so their face down;
i = board.top;
board.top = board.bottom;
board.bottom = i;
vechile.driver = PSYCHO;
while(spammer.lifestate != DEAD)
{
worldtime(3);
vechile.speed++;
}
}
cout }

Legalize spam? That's like legalizing theft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924868)

Back a couple of years ago, Rep. Chris Smith authored HR 1748 (which, unfortunately, is still dead in the water at the moment). The bill would have extended Title 47 USC 227(b) (the anti-junk FAX law, which has already withstood the First Amendment test) to cover unsolicited bulk E-mail.

I still hope they can somehow pass this, as spam is NO DIFFERENT from junk FAXes. It is theft, plain and simple, theft of computing resources, and theft of bandwidth.

There are those who say that it's no different from bulk paper mail. Nothing could be further from the truth! Bulk paper mailings are paid for by the sender for each and every piece, while spam's costs are borne almost entirely by its recipients. Do you want to pay some snake-oil vendor to advertise in your mailbox?

Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is NOT A PUBLIC RESOURCE. It is a huge collection of PRIVATELY-OWNED systems, the owners of which graciously allow others to use.

I doubt that the owners of these systems had spamming in mind when they set up shop, but that's what one gets for throwing open the 'net to anyone with enough $$ to handle a dialup account.

I don't give a flying banana what the DMA says. No spammer's going to hijack my servers to propagate their crap!

Come to think of it... Rob Malda's come right out and says he favors legalizing spam. Perhaps he'd like to post his real E-mail addy in an AOL chat room, or on a couple of the marketing newsgroups?

Heck, if he doesn't like the results, he can "just press delete."

Get a clue, Malda!

99.999% of all spam is Scams anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924869)

It wont matter passing any laws on it.. Spam is all Scams or ways to part you with your money for a worthless product/service/pyrimid marketing like amway... This is evident by the spammers not giving real email reply addresses, and trying to conceal who they really are. What we need is some very talented programmers to write a plethora of virii that only attack Spam software. Make it erase the spam software and the entire email address database quietly.. dont erase anything else just that damn spam program or have it make the spam program fire off 100 cc: copies to whitehouse.gov, bbb.org, NSA.gov and every other agency that would grill these spammers. If the "MAN" is gonna torment innocent hackers and programmers why not sick them on spammers :-)

Or how about making sendmail and other mailing programs flag mass mailings that are over 30 messages as not-allowed unless you ask the ISP to allow it... then the sendmail tags EVERY message with that mass-mailer's ID number as the messages get handed off. I email a helluva lot and I dont need to email more than 30 messages every 4 hours.

HUH?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924870)

Wait a minute.... if you require that the internet and email to be 100% flawless for very important messages and things that will cost you money if they are lost or delayed then you are one very stupid person... email is not guaranteed it is a courtesy.. I offer email service to my customers as a courtesy with the clause that messages will get lost,delayed,mangled,stapled etc... any isp that doesnt have this clause is moronic as they can be sued to DEATH by one idiot that lost some money because he/she was stupid enought to rely on the internet as a ultra-reliable data transmission medium.

If it's important then pick up the damn phone yourself or send someone on a concord to get it personally, never EVER rely on the edutainment we call the internet for anything very important.

Re: PROPOSAL: impose QUOTAS on e-mail and usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924871)

The email limitation would kill mailing lists. This would impact Free Software developers especially.

-- anonymous moderator

Indentation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924872)

firstly, it was nicely indented, I can't stand code that isn't so I was a little bummed after I posted it.
secondly its under the GPL.

Thanks. xTurnip

Someone else(?) raised this objection... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924873)

...and the discussion is ongoing here:

http://forums.infoworld.com/threads/get.cgi?1079 82

NOOOOOoooo...... Oh yesssssssss!!!!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924874)

There is an important element left out of the math: That's 2 gigabytes of traffic for just -one- spammer.
Legitimize spam and you'll have literally -thousands- of businesses sending out their spew.
There isn't a network around that will handle the workload, nevermind filtering.

Other channels don't slow down when receiving spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924875)

That's the difference. When I'm downloading spam, other downloads slow down. This costs me time. And for those paying by the byte, money too.

this is slashdot, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924876)

so why is no one blaming Microsoft for spam?

Phone solicitors suck - keep track of them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924877)

If you ask a phone solicitor to take you off their list, they are allowed one mistake within a 12 month period. If they slip up again, I believe they owe you $500.

Spam in its many forms... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924878)

Outside North-America, most of the world pays per-second or per-minute charges for local calls too, which means that every single received spam mail costs money for those who aren't fortunate enough to have a permanently connected server to filter mail before it reaches their mailbox...

PROPOSAL: impose QUOTAS on e-mail and usenet posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924879)

Implement the quotas in what server software? The most used mail servers in the world are open source, remember. If I was a spammer, I'd use my own server software, and make it autogenerate new adresses, and voila, back in business. The only way it would work would be if mailservers only accepted e-mail from adresses registered in a centralized database.

Can you say "Hello, Big Brother"?

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924887)

Yes, there is a telco analogy. War dialers and telemarketing auto diallers. Both of these are illegal.

It is not so much an issue of what information is being sent, but the fact that it is being bulk sent to individuals/ companies who have not requested it. There are laws which limit conventional telemarketing to only certain hours, etc. This anology being made, I disagree with it philisophically.

The problem truly is that there is very little practical way to enforce any spam related legislation. Adopting a law wont prevent the problem, it only punishes the worst of them (should they get caught) after the fact.

The only way to limit the misuse of technology, is to build precautions into the technology. I dont simply rely on law enforcement to find people who hack into my site, I install firewalls, use strong encryption, etc. to limit the number of people who *can* get thru (someone always can tho, I just make my site less of an appealing target).

One good solution would be for the industry to accept the use of X509 certificates to authenticate the E-Mail author. There can then be lists and/ or services which either block network traffic, or kill the message upon receipt.

Law enforcement is extremely limited in their ability to police the net, and its traffic. This is a good thing. However, us tech heads need to take on the challenge ourselves. We created this wonderfull, glorious mess, so we must fix it and make it better. Adding infilstructure which by its nature prevents abuse via technology is the only solution which has a prayer of reining in these newbie itiots who never apparwenly have heard the term 'nettiquite'.

Just my little 'us geeks control the system, so *we* must deal with it' rant.

Spam in its many forms... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1924888)

"snailmail spam only wastes my time, not my money as well..." I can't see how e-mail SPAM is a waste of your money unless you're paying for your bandwidth by the amount of data you are transfering every month, or are paying for a long distance call (don't even get me started on the FCC crap surrounding telephone calls and the internet *ugh*). *Most* people will pay a flat monthly fee for their service regardless of what or how long per day they are using their service. So the argument that SPAM is costing you the *end user* is not valid as far as the cost of service is concerned. I view it like this: SPAM is an undefeatable evil, it will always be around in many forms...glossy ads crammed in your mailbox, e-mail about the new ProWhacker 9000 golf balls or "Steamy Sultry Suzie wants to Suck You Dry", or some schmooze calling you during dinner to get you to subscribe to the Chronicle when you already get the Tribune. All of these examples are a waste of time and resources, yet we deal with them everyday. But how many times do you hear someone bitch about e-mail spam as opposed to bitching about getting a snail-mail ad from AT&T to get you to join att.net? I would say I hear about 100 complaints for e-mail for every complaint about snail mail or phone solicitation. I work for an ISP and you wouldn't believe (OK, maybe you would) the number of SPAM complaints that we process on a daily basis. Do you know how many man-hours we spend poring over this crap? It's a significant amount of time. We probably consume equal amounts of bandwith about SPAM complaints as we do with the SPAM itself, so complaining about SPAM is somewhat self-defeating and equally as wasteful on bandwidth resources as the SPAM itself. Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning SPAM in any way shape or form. It would be a glorious day if I were to wake up and not fine one advert for Sears or an e-mail about "Not MLM" or not have some guy knock on my door to peddle the local paper. Unfortunately, as we move further into the "information age" as all of the news pundits like to put it, all manner of media is going to continue to be saturated with mindless ads and glossy photos of the next hottest thing. I think if bandwidth concerns are the whole issue driving the SPAM crusade then enacting some sort of identifier for SPAM ala the "ADV:" or "SPAM:" tag in the subject header would actually do more to curtail bandwidth waste and lost time than anything else. E-mail clients can be modified and sendmail filters can be designed to look for this tag and then the user or administrator can define what to do with the offending pieces of mail. If an end-user's e-mail client retrieves the mail headers from his mailbox and scans the subjects for these tags rather than downloading the whole message and then hitting 'Delete' then they can make the program nuke mail off of the servers before it is even downloaded over their pitiful 28.8 thus helping to minimize the amount of bandwidth it takes to police e-mail. I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but self-policing is really the only way we can do anything to reduce the evil armies of SPAM senders into a quivering mass of unidentifiable pork products. -Brian

filter (1)

hadron (139) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924889)

Yeah, then what will happen is that spam will have your e-mail address in the "To:" field.

Virgin Net does not charge for internet access (1)

hadron (139) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924890)

What do you mean by that?

mmmn, spam...Not Quite (1)

Bobort (289) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924891)

Your opinion is a common misconception. Spam differs from junkmail in that it requires the resources of the receiving end for it to be delivered. Spammers have no regard for this. I work as a sysadmin for a small college, and I have seen first hand what the real detrimental effects of spam are. In a number of instances, a spammer has sent a (very) large amount of mail to e.g. AOL with a forged return address at our domain. Sometimes upwards of 50,000 of the addresses they attempted to spam were invalid, so 50,000 bounce messages will come hurtling our way from AOL. This has tied our mail server up in knots and effectively cut off email access to our entire campus for hours at a time. Junkmail has no similar effects; the analogy is a broken one. Spam causes *real* damage to its receivers.

Allowing the market to FUNCTION (1)

AndyS (655) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924893)

I hate to reply to what appears to be flame bait, however spam is a case of market failure, in the same way that pollution is (the spammers only find e-mail so cheap because others are footing the bill).

The market is not always perfect as there are things which cannot be accounted for by pricing products, and this is one such case.

Pay to Send Spam (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924894)

Posted by Mike@ABC:

I agree with Rob in that folks should be free to send clearly labeled spam. However, I also think that spammers should foot the bill for sending it instead of the ISP. With tracking software what it is today, it would be really easy for ISPs to charge spammers, who might be less likely to use this tactic if they had to pay for it.

Canadian Version of 'By US Code Title 47, Sec.227' (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924895)

Posted by bwalter:

No, don't charge people. Bottom line: rub it out. Make it illegal. It's illegal to approach someone's home and pester them if they've got a 'No Solicitor's' sign out front in a few US States, so why can't spam be counted in that?

You can set up special rules you want; in the end the spam still uses the bandwidth. Think of your email, and what percentage of it is spam.

Put an end to it. Kill it. There's no middle ground for this kind of personal affront.

NOOOOOoooo...... (2)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924896)

Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

DON'T legalize labelled spam. It isn't just mailboxes filling up that's the problem. You apparently have a dim idea that this is the case since you made that sendmail comment, but the spam would still be running over the network.

STOP spam!

foreal (0)

PHroD (1018) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924897)

i would LOVE to filter that crap out but i cant think of any consistent filters to use to get rid of spam...how annoying. maybe require the string "THIS MAIL IS SPAM AND YOU CAN USE THIS STRING TO FILTER IT OUT IF YOU HAVE HALF A CLUE ABOUT MAIL FILTERS" or something to that effect would do the trick


"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix

Let's chalk this one up to clueless ISP (1)

Masem (1171) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924899)

I do agree that spam and large email distribution
lists are very close (I run my own email
lists, so I do care how spam is treated to make
sure that I won't be affected). However, I would
think in today's day and age that if you are an
ISP, you would block large mass emailings, and
then have your customers come to you to ask to
unblock this feature so they can run legit
email lists, with explicit explaination of
why such large lists are needed. If that
later turns to spam, then the ISP can easily
pull the account.

And again, in this particular case, the ISP
failed 4 times to stop this from happening.
The lawsuit is there to close the barn doors
after the cows have all fled.

Let's chalk this one up to clueless ISP (2)

Masem (1171) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924900)

According to the article, the spammer had *4*
opportunities (not simulataneously) to spam
the number of messages that he did.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice,
shame on me.

The ISP should have kicked in a mail filter that
would block such large numbers of message being
sent at nearly the same time. The fact
they didn't implies they didn't really care
then, and only until *they* were blacklisted
did they seem to take steps (and as indicated
elsewhere, one spam abuse doesn't get you on
the list; it's the repeated spam abuse).

this sounds similar to the women suing credit
card companies for money she lost by internet
gambling; not seeing the light until all was
said and done.

I totally agree, Rob (1)

jafac (1449) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924901)

Legalize SPAM, but we need to change the FORMAT email takes. There should be a "CLASS" field added to the spec, which states whether the email is "SPAM", "BUSINESS", "PERSONAL", "HUMOR", or "ACADEMIC". (others can be added by more imaginative people)
("Commercial" would not do enough to differentiate what I get from a customer or co-worker, in terms of useful communication, from what I get from a SPAMmer).

mis-setting the class field should be punishable by having 20 pounds of monkey shit crammed up the offender's nose.

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

jafac (1449) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924902)

Not as bad as a death threat?

Forcing me to read a SPAM due to misrepresentation STEALS a few precious seconds from my life. It would be the same if someone saw me fall off of a building, and moments before I hit the ground, fired a shotgun blast at my head. Stole a few seconds from my life, and still guilty of murder.

Same goes for idiots who drive too slow in the left lane, or come to a complete stop before turning right off a busy street, or stop when the traffic light turns yellow.

Same goes for people who design OS-es that take too long to boot.

Same goes for "First Post"-ers.

Murderers. Killers. Life-stealers. Time-theives.

SPAM solutions? (1)

stephend (1735) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924904)

One solution that I quite liked was suggested by Esther Dyson in Release 2.1 (although I'm sure it's been suggested by someone before that). She said that if you charged people for sending you email then spamming would either stop or at least become more targetted.

Of course, there is currently no method of doing this (I doubt sending the spammer and invoice for your lost time would work :), but it's an interesting thought.

allowing spam to be SENT (1)

zander (2684) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924905)

Sending spam creates the problem that the ISP has a major load on its systems. Or better said, a non standard load. We all demand from our ISP that the mail we sent is delivered without problems. This is ofcourse no problem in normal surcomstances.

In the event that the law allows spam, the ISP will probably include a no-spam claim in its licence to the users. If this is not done the standaard changes. The normal load becomes that of normal mail, plus spam. It will cost the ISP a lot of money to allow spam in the regions of: "new equipment" and "traffic"

Point is, if spam is allowed, it won't be to much of a problem. withing not to long all ISP's will have the problem covered on technical and contract side.

Now that leaves just the problem that death sentences aren't legal everywhere ;-)

Prerequisites for Legitimising Spam (2)

acb (2797) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924906)

If spam is legalised in its current form in any way, it will still be the redistribution of network bandwidth and disk space to parasitic advertisers. And being legitimate, it will escalate and become even more of a blight on the Net.

The only way that spam could be legitimised was if the advertiser paid for it. If it was conducted over a protocol other than SMTP (as it currently is), where each message was accompanied by payment (or by an account number and credit limit; the server would send it only to as many networks as the credit amount would cover). Receiving servers would be reimbursed for resources used, and advertisers would be billed. Also, fraudulent advertisers could lose their accounts. This could then translate to an alternative to banner ads for free POP/IMAP accounts; users get a metered amount of legit-spam in return for the free account.

Other than something like this, spam is theft of services, plain and simple.

Under the UK data protection act... (1)

Matthew Bassett (2987) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924907)


I may be entirely wrong about this, but I think here in good old blighty, sending unsolicited commercial email would (or possibly should) leave you liable to prosecution under the Data Protection act; either under the bit about holding personal information about people without registering it with the Data Registrar, or under the other bit about abusing this personal information.

Personally, I think I should be allowed to charge a license fee for the use of my email address - after this is _my_ personal information.

filter (1)

blayd (3655) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924909)

Actually, it's pretty easy. Just check to see if the "To:" field has your e-mail address in it.

Naturally, you will want to create exceptions for any legitimate mailing lists you may subscribe to.

Scott Banwart
---
Better to stay silent, and let people think
you're an idiot than to open your mouth and

OOOps? It was a Mistake? (1)

The Cheez-Czar (4124) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924910)

My favorite part of the story was after the first time he got caught the spammer said it was an "accident".

He just accidentally sent an e-mail to 10 million people.

Yeah uh-huh, pull the other one, its gots bells on it!

Phone solicitors suck. (1)

zempf (4454) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924911)

Don't know if you are a college student or not, but I am continually bombarded with calls from credit card companies in my dorm room. A few weeks ago, there was some company (don't remember which offhand since I've taken to just hanging up on them now) that would call at 8:30am EVERY DAY asking for either my roommate or me. Suffice to say, that gets really old after a while.

As far as asking to be taken off the list, well, I've done that, but there's just so many damn companies out there that it hasn't helped. I think for every company that I ask to take me off their list, 3 more add me to their list. Bleh.

-mike kania

SPAM under same laws as Phone Solicitation? (1)

Headius (5562) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924913)

As far as I've been able to tell, Spam should (or already does) fall under the same laws governing phone solicitation. I for one *always* tell telemarketers that I'm not interested and to take me off their lists. They are legally required to comply by the FCC. The biggest complaint I have is not that I recieve spam - it's that 9 times out of 10, the return address is a load of hooey. Granted, I could hunt down who sent it, but it's not worth my time when I can simply delete it. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply throw spam under the same laws, require a working return address, and require that all requests to "remove this address from your lists" be complied with?

I agree, DON'T use Subject: Line! (1)

jsm (5728) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924914)

A Subject: line is better than nothing, but we shouldn't overload it. Maybe someone wants to send email that happens to have that string of characters in the subject.

Better to use a different mail header expressly for this purpose.

James
james@jmarshall.com

I don't pay for Junkmail (1)

Bilbo (7015) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924915)

SPAM is different from snail mail. With the Post Office, you pay for each item delivered. It may be a small amount, but it adds up. With the SPAM, it is the carrier (i.e., the ISP), and ultimately the end user who pays for the bandwidth. This is why junkmail FAXING is illegal. This is why SPAM should be illegal.

See the CAUCE [cauce.org] home page

Filtering is a Bad Thing, But... (1)

Bilbo (7015) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924916)

"Filtering" requirements currently under discussion are generally bogus, since they still put the burden on the ISP or end user (i.e., I still end up paying for SPAM even if I don't receive it), but...

...think what might happen if the cockroaches discover that 99.9999% of their 10 million addresses are getting bounced? The practice might quietly die on its own...

Unfortunately, labeling requirements are difficult to enforce, since a large portion of the problem is small time operators working out of their homes, using software they bought for $39.95. Who's going to track down all those people?

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

Michel (8815) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924917)

It's not the same thing...

And I don't think they are really interested in the contents of whatever it is that gets sent. All that the ISP needs to know is that the subscriber sent something that caused the whole ISP to get on the shitlist, which is obviously not good for business. And it's not something the ISP could have prevented either, without them filtering messages for content, which isn't a good idea either.

And to take a shot at an analogy:
What if some J. Random Person got a phonecall from some guy threatening to kill him, or whatever. JRP doesn't like this, and sues the phone company.

Then what? Should the phone company just pay up and let it go? I don't think so, so I think they should be able to sue the sender.

Last paragraph: will they ever come to understand? (2)

EJB (9167) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924918)

In the last part: "The European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) has lobbied for governments to have the right to block advertising and marketing that violates their own laws rather than leave it to the country of origin."

*sigh* Will they ever understand? And this is coming from a consumer organisation?

Any kind of government-mandated filtering is doomed to be incomplete, because people will make copies of the material, and especially the kind of people who would engage in ripping off consumers, and thus evade the filter.

But it will also give governments a change to filter other kinds of stuff they don't like; just label it "bad marketing" or whatever.

What happened to educating people? Europeans don't have as much Internet-experience as Americans, but does that mean that we have to be treated like children here?
What happened to your own reponsibility?

I really feel sick because of this kind of ignorance.

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

UncleRoger (9456) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924919)

It's not the content of his messages that is the root of the suit, but the quantity thereof, and the ill effects ("loss of business") that resulted from his actions.

You can use the phone to talk about how bad the phone company is, even to make plans to blow up the local office. No worries. But if you actually carry out that plan...

Or, look at it this way: you pay for a certain amount of service. You use way more without paying for it. Your abuse causes other customers to lose access. You cause your provider to incur significant costs to clean up the mess. You are liable, regardless of what you used the excess services for.

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (2)

EnglishTim (9662) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924920)

The ISP only really has an interest in the content if that content harms the ISP in some way. As you have to enter into a contract with the ISP when you sign up, part of which is an agreement not to send spam, the ISP is quite within it's legal (and moral, IMO) rights to sue.

Remember, this guy knew that he was breaking the agreement, and that he was abusing the system.


What is the worth of an Unsolicited EMailing? (1)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924921)

How would the IRS (mutatus mutandi for other nations besides the USA) tax spam? Does it count as income? What if the spammer is a not for profit organization? At least with drug dealers, the IRS has a clear interest: income not declared from drug sales is taxable income and the dealers commit tax evasion. The interest in the case of spammers is not so clear.

A better idea, perhaps, is to place reasonable limits on the number of emails that a person can send each month. Say, two thousand, with an additional one thousand per month for extra costs. When they run out, they have to cough up an extra five bucks or forget about sending email for the remainder of the month. Each address one sends to constitutes a separate email. Any comments on this?

NOOOOOoooo...... (1)

tgeller (10260) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924922)

What he said. Or, to put it my own way...

Are you *nuts*, Rob? If the spam "warning" goes in the Subject line, you wouldn't be able to filter it until the SMTP DATA parameter. By that time, the spammer has already stolen from you, making the point moot.

I could understand labeling earlier in the transaction -- like, right after HELO -- but labeling in the Subject line is useless. (This was the point of California's Bowen bill, BTW, memorialized inCalifornia Business & Professions Code 17538.4. See http://suespammers.org/ca/laws /bpc_17538-4_full.html [suespammers.org] for the full text.)

--Tom

Death to the spammers (a function to do so) (1)

lar3ry (10905) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924923)

Imaginative. Descriptive.

A little over the top, perhaps?
--

NOOOOOoooo...... (1)

smileyy (11535) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924924)

But wouldn't adequately labelled spam (in some sort of e-mail header) be filterable at pretty much any level? Either at the originating ISP, or anywhere else along the path?

Furthermore, this wouldn't prevent ISPs from still prohibiting UCE as part of their Acceptable Use Policy.

Slashdot and mailing lists are different! (1)

Wag the Dog (12835) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924925)

I don't think there should be anything wrong with setting up a mailing list or other system that sends out mass mailing (like vger). However, it's quite different when you use an ISP's mail gateway to send out mass mailings. Slashdot "pays" for the bandwidth for each message (I assume). Spammers generally send only a few emails with tons of recipients and the ISP mail gateways "generate" the traffic. If spammers would pay for a full T1 or fractional T3 line in order to send out mass mailings, more power to them. They would have to get a permanent IP address and we could block that. But, "relaying" mass email through and ISP gateway is evil.

(I assume that Slashdot sends out individual news updates because my name is on the subject line.)

The Realtime Blackhole List (1)

dmuth (14143) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924926)

I think there's more to this story than the article tells us. From what I know of the Real Time Blackhole List ( http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ [vix.com] ) and the people who run it, an ISP has to be pretty clueless in order to get onto it in the first place. According to their RBL candidacy page [vix.com] , they try their best to reason with the ISPs of the spammers and, if possible, to only Blackhole the spammers themselves.

I'd be interested in hearing what the RBL folks have to say about this situation.

Let's chalk this one up to clueless ISP (1)

Haight6716 (14846) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924928)

This is truely a clueless ISP. Not only did they not notice on their own, but before anyone ever gets blacklisted, every attempt is made to confront the offender throught RFC (822 is it?) required postmaster@, as well as any other means available.

Blacklisting a relay is not done lightly. Moreover, the recipients of the spam no doubt sent many, many complaints to this ISP which were either BOUNCED or IGNORED. Either, way, the ISP had plenty of warning. They deserve everything they get, and although the spammer is of course the original cause of the problem, I don't think you can sue a spammer for your own ignorance/lazyness. Unfortunately, the internet is becomeing more and more of a war-zone, and if an ISP can't take the heat, then they should get out of the kitchen.

People don't get blacklisted on a whim.

-=Julian=-

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924929)

And to take a shot at an analogy: What if some J. Random Person got a phonecall from some guy threatening to kill him, or whatever. JRP doesn't like this, and sues the phone company.
Then what? Should the phone company just pay up and let it go? I don't think so, so I think they should be able to sue the sender.

I don't think that analogy is a very good one. For one thing, the nature of the content is different: spam e-mails are annoying and a waste of computing resources, but (generally) aren't as bad as, say, death threats.

Secondly (someone correct me if I'm wrong?), I believe even phone companies can enforce terms of use agreements, to some degree. When I started getting faxes at my home phone number at 3 am, I called my phone company's abuse line to let them know. They couldn't help, unfortunately, but there is an avenue of recourse there.

Thirdly and finally: unless you're calling collect, it's the advertiser/threatener who pays for the call. A better analogy would have been if someone had called you collect to try to sell you something. I have the option of not allowing a collect call through: ISPs don't have the same option with e-mail.

Canadian ISP already successful in anti-spam suit (2)

Agnomen (15271) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924930)

I.D. Internet Direct. Ltd. successful in suit
against junk emailer

Press Release: I.D. Internet Direct. Ltd. successful in suit against junk emailer

April 1, 1999, Toronto - In the first successful lawsuit of its kind in Canada,
independent Internet service provider (ISP) I.D. Internet Direct Ltd. today announced
that the court has ruled in its favour in its recent application for an injunction against
junk emailer Cory Altelaar. The ruling grants I.D. Internet Direct. Ltd. an injunction
preventing Cory Altelaar from delivering junk email through its systems and awards
the ISP a reimbursement of its legal costs.

"This is a ground-breaking ruling in the struggle against junk email in Canada," says
John Nemanic, President of I.D. Internet Direct. Ltd. "If Mr. Altelaar violates the court
order and attempts to use our services for junk email again, he'll be looking at some
serious charges."

Nemanic says that his company received several calls and emails of support from other
ISPs who were similarly abused by junk emailers (also known as "spammers"). "We
want to thank our lawyer, Andrew Lundy of Brunner and Lundy, for his fine work in
this case," says Nemanic. "This ruling sends junk emailers a serious message: this
activity is not legally acceptable in Canada. You can try to hide, but you will be caught
and risk prosecution if you abuse the Internet."

NOOOOOoooo...... Oh yesssssssss!!!!!!!!!! (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924931)

I have no problem with this idea, The small bit of network load wouldn't be to bad imho. (Still, you might want to make that: Clearly labeled AND smaller than 2048 bytes).

It wouldn't be a small network load even at 2048 bytes per message. Work the math. 10 million addresses. Say only 1 in 10 is sufficiently legal to cause network traffic ( either deliverable or needs to be relayed so that it won't be found to be undeliverable until after it's been transferred ). At 2K per message, you're looking at 2 gigabytes worth of traffic.

Somehow the entire burden of spam has to be shouldered by the spammers themselves, either by making it illegal or by having a reliable way to force them to pay for the don't want them to have to foot the bill for transport. And if you want the second, it needs to be after-the-fact and under the control of the recipient. I don't want to make a mailing list foot the bill because I subscribed to it, for example.

You are being real clueless Taco ! (0)

Eivind (15695) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924932)

Filled mailboxes is only part of the problem of SPAM. It comes down to if it`s acceptable that recipients should pay the larger part of the bill to receive advertizing. My answer is _no_.

I don`t care to receive advertizing at all, and if I do I _certainly_ won`t accept paying for it too.

Go ISP! (1)

Visoblast (15851) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924934)

If access providers state that their users may not spam, then they ought to sue their users who do! This sounds like a great policy to me! I hope most ISP's adopt this kind of policy to save their own bandwith.

EU to fight SPAM (1)

Bryan Andersen (16514) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924935)

If you look at the end of the article it mentions that the EU is going to look at regulating SPAM at the reception end. How are they gonna do this?

I guess SPAMers will need to have the country of residence for the email address.

Why not tax mass Unsolicited EMailings? (1)

Bryan Andersen (16514) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924936)

Why not tax mass Unsolicited EMailings? If thay don't pay the tax, send the IRS (or Insert country's equivalent here) after them.

Virgin=spamhaus (1)

Fishy (17624) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924938)

Its was this spammer who gacve virgin their spamhaus title, and he spammer from btinternet after/before (i forget the sequence) this.

If virgin want to make a point out of this, then good luck to them. But they should have been on the ball in the first place, and allowing him to spam a second time was just gross stupidity on their part.

Now if only all other UK isp's could get a clue (excluding clara, who have always been white hat)

Fishy

Virgin Net does not charge for internet access (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924941)

Sounds like they belong in the clueless ISP category.

NOOOOOoooo...... (1)

Shadowlion (18254) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924942)

Excuse me?

The idea is to put a [SPAM] or [AD] in the header line, not the body of the message. Sure, you still incur some overhead over simply blankly sending out the email, but you aren't wasting gobs of processor time wandering over the content.

Legalize spam? Is that a joke? (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924943)

I like that idea! Starting now, thats how it's gonna be.

NOOOOOoooo...... Oh yesssssssss!!!!!!!!!! (1)

QuMa (19440) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924944)

I have no problem with this idea, The small bit of
network load wouldn't be to bad imho. (Still, you might want to make that: Clearly labeled AND smaller than 2048 bytes).

I'm just afraid it's not gonna work. It's a pitty but as long as there are no big actions against spammers and big punishments, nothing will change. Sad but true.

QuMa

I think we should let 5-year-olds drive (1)

mudshark (19714) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924945)

and simply put enormous inflatable bumpers on all of our cars, telephone poles, buildings and anything else they might run into.

C'mon, Rob. I'm sure you can see why it's insane to allow the purveyors of snake oil, pyramid scams, and recursive address extractor apps to keep on dumping out terabytes of content that nobody wants to read about, let alone buy. By the time your procmail script puts spam in the bitbucket, the network resources have already been consumed.

if (not $horse) {
closebarndoor($dontbother);}

Moore's law does not apply to net bandwidth.

Indentation? Here's how: (1)

mudshark (19714) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924946)

Post as HTML. Use non-breaking space tag in the textarea input. Hit Preview.

The preview page will show the nbsp tags as literals, but you'll notice that they're gone from the textarea. Hit Submit.

Fee for spamming (1)

Squeedle (20031) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924947)

The only way to stop spam is to start hitting the guilty parties in the pocketbook.Spammers clearly don't even care if they send out valid information - we've been hit with spam that advertises non-working URLs!

Spam is just so cheap that spammers don't even bother with quality control, and they don't worry about irritating people or costing anyone money- they don't have to pay for the cost to the recipients, and even one or two responses pays back the cost of the spam.

I wish ISPs would realize what an unexplored revenue source spammers are. I claim that the number of people on any given spam list is comparable to a full-page ad in a major newspaper. How much is a full-page ad in say, the Chicago Tribune? Why should spammers be treated any different than for example, Sears, the Democratic Party, or Saks Fifth Avenue? Make them pay for advertising "space," at comparable market value. Make them sign an advertising contract before spamming. People who advertise without paying would incur fees over and above the normal advertising rates. Advertising without a contract
could be grounds for canceling one's account.

Spam would automatically go down because most people couldn't afford it. It would automatically be traceable because the ISP makes them sign a contract. It would have valid information and only rarely have duplicate addresses because the spammer (now advertiser) can't afford to send more e-mail than necessary, and can't afford to send a new, correct message.

Legalizing spam is not a good idea (1)

haffi (21074) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924949)

As long as the reciever is paying for the
bandwidth he/she uses spam should be illegal.

Nobody should have to pay to recieve ads.

SPAM doesnt do an ISP good (1)

Killer K (22848) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924952)

when spam causes a mailserver to be too busy to accept real mail (this really happens) who is responsible for the messages that arent received by the time the information has become stale?

I have had an instance where I received 100,000 peices of bounce mail from some a bulk email company and it stopped an important message to be delayed by 4 hours .... the message was telling the person that there was an important meeting they had to be at 1 hour before he got the message.

No Spam. (1)

beau (25586) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924953)

I think they should'nt stop with just sueing this man, they should remove his genitalia :)

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

GlobalEcho (26240) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924954)

Although I hate spam as much as anybody, this seems to be the wrong front on which to fight it. I think common carrier status for ISP's is a Good Thing. Suing a subscriber based on the contents of their usage implies an interest in that content. Which an ISP shouldn't have.


Can anybody think of a good phone company analogy?

Legalizing spam is not a good idea (1)

jperret (27461) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924955)

Hmm, you pay for your TV subscription, right ?

So you're paying to receive ads.

Am I wrong ?

Spam in its many forms... (1)

Nodatadj (28279) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924956)

I can't see how e-mail SPAM is a waste of your money unless you're paying for your bandwidth by the amount of data you are transfering every month, or are paying for a long distance call
Or are in the UK where you pay by the second for phone bills.

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

Fluffy the Cat (29157) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924958)

This is an important point - spam has nothing to do with content. Whether it's peddling child pornography or requesting charitable donations, it's still not the sender paying the vast majority of the cost that occurs without giving anyone else a say in the matter. And this is why people should object.

BLARGH, spam... (1)

JatTDB (29747) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924959)

Just because there's a precedent for spam doesn't make it any better. And there is a _big_ difference...I don't specifically pay for snailmail to get to my mailbox. The advertiser pays to have their crap sent to me. I pay for my internet access, and I'll be damned if I'll let someone waste my money that way. Always nice to have a couple of mail servers under your control to rip the spammer a new asshole and get his account cancelled. At least snailmail spam only wastes my time, not my money as well.

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

Priestess (30745) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924960)

Can anybody think of a good phone company analogy?

Nope, but does the snail mail count as a common carrier? If I send some nasty chemical through the mail and it melts a sorting office machine then I'm sure the post office would want to take some action over it. This guy sent mail that effected the companies machines in a similar way. That the kind of thing you're looking for?

Priestess.......

Kill 'em all. (1)

DonkPunch (30957) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924961)

Let the great root in the sky sort 'em out.

I hate spammers AND I hate junk snail-mailers AND I hate telephone solicitors.

This "direct-marketing database of names, addresses, and phone numbers" nonsense is getting REAL old. If I've never bought anything from you or requested information from you, you shouldn't have my name, address, or phone number. Period.

The notion that I have to ASK to be taken off your list is stupid, too. By the reasoning, you have to ASK me to stop whacking you with a baseball bat.

/* Some of my posts are very serious and thoughtful. Some are just rants. Guess which one this was. */

Indentation? (1)

DonkPunch (30957) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924962)

What, you can't indent your code? :)

Also, is this function under a GPL or a BSD-style license?

/* Counting the days until Rob modifies the scripts to stop me from posting. */

Whoa (1)

DonkPunch (30957) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924963)

That's a twisted, evil, and thoroughly amusing idea. :)

Should be pretty simple -- just write a standard spam bulk mailer program but add a timebomb. Give it away for free. Let the spammer go for a few days, then format the drive.

I'm not advocating this, but it does make me smile.

Yes, you're wrong... (1)

schon (31600) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924964)

Where I live there are five television stations (six, if you speak french) that all broadcast on the standard band - all you need is an antenna.

Cable here basically just pipes in content from other cities - you're paying for the sattellite time, not the commercials.

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (2)

schon (31600) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924965)

The problem truly is that there is very little practical way to enforce any spam related legislation. Adopting a law
wont prevent the problem, it only punishes the worst of them (should they get caught) after the fact.
The only way to limit the misuse of technology, is to build precautions into the technology. I dont simply rely on law enforcement to find people who hack into my site, I install firewalls, use strong encryption, etc. to limit the number of people who *can* get thru (someone always can tho, I just make my site less of an appealing target).

You make an interesting point - but if I were to draw an analogy, it would be this:
"Adopting a law won't prevent someone from breaking into your house, it only punishes them after the fact. I don't simply rely on law enforcement to find people who steal from me, I install better locks, put bars on my windows, to limit the number of people who *can* get thru (someone always can tho, I just make my home less of an appealing target.)"

I work for an ISP - we pay by the packet for our upstream bandwidth. When someone sends me spam, it costs us money. Therefore they are stealing from us.

Legalize spam? Is that a joke? (2)

morrigan (32728) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924966)

The biggest problem with spam is bandwidth loss. There are a million programs out there that let you take care of clearing your mailbox, and there are plenty of ways to keep yourself off of spam lists, but there's no way to regain lost bandwidth.

Here's a tip for keeping your email account spam-free: get a hotmail account, and use it for all internet registration and anything else that can be seen by a webcrawler or grabbed for a mailing list. Then all of the spam goes to Hotmail, and M$ ends up paying for it. :)

Perhaps a solution... (2)

KingBob (33381) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924967)

Well, just a thought perhaps.

In Australia, there is a guy who clearly labels his letter box and invoices people and businesses $75 per hit for his time incurred having to attend to their physical junk mail. He is well within his legal rights to do this, and is making a tidy sum from it. (Not to mention discouraging time wasters!)

Maybe thinking like this could be applied to spammers, after all, they are in many instances taking up our valuable time, and bandwidth which as someone else mentioned, we do have to pay for.

Is this consistent with common carrier status? (1)

AaronW (33736) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924968)

I guess you don't remember Agis and spammers then. Agis gave the spammers a free reign on its network. The spam flowed like the mississippi and everyone got pissed off at Agis and firewalled them off. Agis now has about the best anti-spam record in the industry.

I'm sorry, but how would you feel if you were an ISP and someone ran a huge spam run against your users and your mail server ground to a halt under the load, with millions of undeliverable messages and what not.

Legalizing spam is not a good idea (1)

bbarrett (33853) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924969)

That is different. With Cable TV, part of the cost of the subscription is offset by ads. ie, without the ads, cable TV would be more expense.

With spam, the opposite is true. Without spam, your bandwidth needs go down, your mail server doesn't need to work as hard, and your mail server also doesn't need to store all the crap it has to now. Spam doesn't offset prices, it increases them.

Why Spam is a Bad Thing (4)

An Ominous Cowbird (33953) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924970)

There are several reasons why Spam is a Bad Thing. Here are some of the main ones:

1. You end up paying for it whether you want it or not. If your ISP makes you pay for every message you get or every gigabyte of traffic, you have to pay for something you didn't ask for, don't want and will never use. Anybody on here who gripes about getting Windows with a nascent Linux-only computer should recognize the feeling. Even if you have a flat rate account your ISP has to spend time, effort and perhaps money to keep up with the flow of spam, and that translates directly into higher fees for you. (The junk mail analogy doesn't really apply here. The sender pays for junk mail; the receiver pays for spam.)

2. The few spams that are potentially of interest are drowned out by fraudulent get-rich-quick schemes, porno ads, ads for spam generators and the like. Yeah, right, like I'm going to buy something based on the say-so of someone with a fake e-mail address who posted his spam from a dial-up account.

3. Spam clogs the Net just by its sheer volume. Just think, if you could get rid of spam all that space would be available for information of interest (and it would be a substantial amount!).

Personally, I think spam should be lumped in with the "junk fax" law, and for the same reasons. It may happen, at least here in Washington; one anti-spam activist here in Washington took to forwarding the spam he got to everyone in the state legislature. He then went on to say (paraphrasing), "The next day I had several requests to turn off the flow of spam because it was clogging their mailboxes. That same day [a bill tightening spam regulations] passed out of conference..."

Caw Caw

Use the "Junk" priority! (2)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924972)

If folks sending unsolicited email to multiple parties were compelled to use the "junk" priority that was put into the email standard it would solve a lot of the problems. It would be much easier to filter them, and sendmail servers would be able give them the lower prioity in delivery that they deserve.

SPAM doesnt do an ISP good (1)

heech (36526) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924974)

If you could find somewhere in your account terms and conditions that you are promised timely and instant messaging via e-mail, you could conceivably have a case against the ISP (and persumably, they could pursue action against the spammer).

Since you are using a message medium that basically makes no such timeliness guarantees (and tell me if your ISP DOES...I'm changing over...), there's absolutely no grounds for your complaint. You might as well sue your post-office for that Christmas card that was delayed for 5 months.

Let's chalk this one up to clueless ISP (2)

heech (36526) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924975)

I totally disagree. There are certainly legitimate reasons for sending out mass mailings. The obvious things that comes to mind are large-distribution mailing lists, or corporate mailing lists where receivers *requested* the information.

Think about SlashDot's Headline News sent out every-night. I can easily imagine a few thousand emails being sent on a nightly basis. Instead of making it a policy that legitimate users of the Internet and mass-mailings at-large are punished, those who abuse the system should be punished. In my opinion, Virgin is absolutely within their rights to pursue action against someone who repeatedly violated stated account policies. I would imagine their financial losses can be pretty severe, and I hope the court finds for their cause an appropriate amount.

That doesn't mean "spammers" don't have a place on the Internet to pursue their antics (which you apparently advocate). A case could be made for violations of their civil liberties. Fine, let them find service providers who are capable and willing to source such spam-artists.

mmmn, spam... (1)

!Dozer (38356) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924976)

I pay for my email and bandwidth. I don't pay for the junk mail that arrives at my house.

I agree that I don't see it as a big inconvenience right now -- it has become a fact of life. However, I wouldn't mind it being outlawed. But because that will never happen, we could at least levy a tax on the people doing it. Or maybe the ISP providing the spammers account would have a different kind of account that charged an email tax...

Dozer

"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them."

Fee for spamming (2)

queef (39232) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924977)

The ISP I work for actually charges customers that spam using our system. Users who send mass unsolicited email through our system will incur a charge of $1000, plus a charge of $25 for each
spam message sent through our system, $10 for each complaint received by the our staff as a result of the spam, and $25 for each message bounced back to us as a result of the spam.
Mailbombers will also be billed at the same rate.
:)

Legalizing spam is not a good idea (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924979)

Here in the UK, (terrestrial) TV licensing is only for BBC 1 and BBC 2, which have no adverts. The rest use adverts to support themselves.

We also have to pay for _all_ phone calls, meaning spam e-mail directly costs us money, even if we delete it on arrival.

mmmn, spam... (1)

ph0rk (118461) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924981)

i have to agree, spam isn't really all that bad.

i mean, i have about as much use for titanium oven mitts as the next guy, and i really don't 10E^50 email addresses, (but hey, doesn't that subliminal seduction tape really work? *cough*)

But c'mon, it's just like the junkmail you get at home. only you don't have to walk all the way to the garbage can; you get rid of it without leaving your couch. if you really want to bitch, bitch about something worthwhile. junkmail is just junkmail.

Canadian Version of 'By US Code Title 47, Sec.227' (1)

alanp (179536) | more than 15 years ago | (#1924982)

Is there a Canadian version of this:

220-By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the
220-definition of a telephone fax machine.
220-
220-By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any
220-unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.
220-
220-By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned
220-Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or 500
220-dollars, whichever is greater, for each violation.

Charging the people $500 to use you as a relay to send spam would stomp out the problems....
--
Alan L. * Webmaster of www.UnixPower.org
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...