Online Marketers to Stamp out Spam? 263
CodeHog writes "A group of online marketers want to get rid of spam and are proposing a registry base system for transmitting email. They are calling the project Lumos. Computer World has an aritcle on it Online marketers offer new antispam initiative
. Doesn't it seem like these are the same businesses that profit from spam? Even better, this is being proposed by ESPC. The member list doesn't look too anti-spam to me." The obvious issue of course is that most spammers won't follow the rules anyway. My spam is up 20% over the 1st quarter of 2003! Yay!
Like this is going to save the world (Score:5, Insightful)
Go calculate [webcalc.net] something
web log spam (Score:4, Insightful)
me too. (Score:5, Insightful)
email mod? (Score:2, Insightful)
Another idea is to not give your address out. I've only recieved 4 sams for my account [mailto], all of which appear to be from spambots. (let's hope they don't read
What would be the best server-side spam filter operated by root, where upon request I could block spam with a particular title or source for all users?
cannot stop spam. (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't imagine my Yahoo mail without their spam controls... (Unlike Hotmail, which spams you themselves)
Re:Like this is going to save the world (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to stop spam is either re-work SMTP or intellegent spam filters... Its hard to knock spam filters nowadays... They are almost artificial intelligence in their ability to spot a spam e-mail. Its amazing... Try a good one like iHateSpam [ihatespam.com] and see... They remove close to 99% of spam.
I predict the first self-aware system will not be a 2001 HAL-like supercomputer, but a spam filter running on someones desktop.
"What are you doing Dave? How about a lower mortgage rate, Dave?"
Re:Yes, let's hand email over to marketers (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Like this is going to save the world (Score:5, Insightful)
Few people are advocating any longer sending mass emails to everyone they can find an address for. Most people have found that using legitimate sources of addresses (such as your customer list, trade-show lists, and small targetted lists) get great results that customers are willing to pay for.
These people are usually sending out up to 10,000 emails at a time.
The professionals involved _want_ email marketing to be legitimate - because it gets higher-dollar business for them.
This might actually help... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds more like these spammers are getting together to find a way to continue sending requested marketing email. Spam has gotten so bad that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater at the ISP level, before the consumer even implements their own filters. They're afraid of losing the ability to market via e-mail *period*, so they've come up with a way to screen it.
If it actually works as they claim (in terms of unsubscribe rules, identifiability, and so forth) it might be a way ISPs could filter out commercial email that *doesn't* conform to this protocol, while still allowing commercial email to happen.
I'm not saying I think it will (or won't) work, but I think this is probably a sincere attempt to regulate commercial email in a manner that will be acceptable to consumers.
Re:You are a fucking moron (Score:3, Insightful)
How to do this for real (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that this is way overcomplicating the situation. What is the number one reason why spammers can't be detected? They use relays and proxies to hide their identity. How to fix this? Only accept SMTP mail from servers authorized to send email for that domain. This would require a new DNS record (call it an SMTP record for now). If a server does not have authorization to send email for a domain (say yahoo.com), then when the receiving server looks up the SMTP record, it won't find it and will reject the email.
If the server is authorized, then the email will go through. If it turns out to be spam, then the sending server can either stop sending email for the spammer or be blacklisted. This will make relaying much harder. Also, it makes it useful for SMTP servers to authenticate users. Currently, this is meaningless in the fight against spam, since one could just use an open relay instead. However, if only authorized smtp servers were allowed to relay mail, then requiring authorization prevents spammers from sending mail under a false email address.
This would create a traceable system and allow spammers to be identified without forcing client software changes (might have to change SMTP configuration). Spammers would have to own an account or a domain name in order to send spam. Either requires payment and contact info. Faking the contact info would be fraud which would be prosecutable by tracing the payment.
Leverage existing law with proper infrastructure.
Re:Not all the mail YOU don't want is spam... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't compare spam email with television ads, there is a fundamental difference.
TV ads help pay for my TV experience.
On the other hand, spam emailers make me pay for receiving their emails, through higher ISP bills.
One of these situations is a mutually beneficial business agreement, and the other is exploitation. Can you guess which is which?
Re:cannot stop spam. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a social problem. It's a problem of greed, laziness, and a general disrespect for anyone and everyone.
No matter what sort of technological wizardry is concocted, spammers, like cockroaches, will slip in between the cracks.
I don't care about filtering spam. I want a system that will prevent the stuff from ever being transmitted in the first place (like maybe a keyboard that would explode, mortally wounding the user if the keyboard detected that the user was going to spam...)
Re:cannot stop spam. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two schools of thought on this,
which I like to call "spam assassin" and "spammer assassin".
People in the spam assassin school are interested in not reading spam.
To them, anything that stops them from reading spam "works".
They would rate things like Baysian filtering as incredibly successful.
People in the spammer assassin school are interested in stopping spam from being sent.
They would rate things like Baysian filtering as a dismal failure that "misses the point".
Intelligent filtering is effective against spam,
but not against spammers.
It may or may not "work", just depends on your school of thought.
-- this is not a
it's a lie. (Score:4, Insightful)
These turkeys just want to keep out their competitors. Shemes to add intelligence to the internet are all designed to make it imposible for any but a select few to send the adverts. They seek legitmacy and government protection for their abuse of a public network. That's not something I'm willing to give up my ability to run a mail server for. Nor do I wish for my ISP to be forced to pay fees for the new service which will garantee spam forever.
So called "accountability" schemes to rework mail protocal are equally evil. The 1:1 network of copper wires known as the telephone system is abused all day long.
The answer is to simply outlaw these obnoxious practices. Unsolicited comercial calls are abuses of public networks and should not be tollerated. People who would abuse their neighbors this way should be fined and put in jail.
Re:Not all the mail YOU don't want is spam... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is, in this, a large part of the problem why UCE is viewed in such a dim light. I have highlighted the applicable section. These things should always be opt-in, always and without exception. It really is just a sneaky method of getting people to agree. If it is known that most people will fall into the next-next-next mode when going through a series of forms, and you don't want to send emails people don't want, then your design should plan for this. Have the box unchecked by default, and allow those users who want the email, to check it. You are simply lying to yourself and us if you belive that an opt-out methadology can ever co-exist with the desire to only send email to those that really want it.
Well you know what? These people that do email for a living ARE trying to do something about it and what do we hear on
I agree with you here, it would appear that the companies involved in this are making a valid attempt to get the real spam under control. Though, I think this could be better solved by creating a huge opt-in list (which is not sold or publicly printed) such that, if a company wished to send a bulk email campaign, they send it through this list, and it then gets forwarded on to the intended and willing recipients. Probably also have some preference settings, which a recipent selects during sign-up, that allow for filtering based on interests, thus making the ads more targeted. And lastly, allow for immediate remove, by a user, of their email address from a list. Oh, and the hard part, give some sort of value for allowing one's self to be marketed to.
Of course, there would still be those abusers, you will never be rid of them. We will still get our "Enlarge Your Penis and Keep It Up Forever with Viagra" ads, but then we could start working on this problem, and not bother people who run legitamte mail-lists.
Unsubscribe Buttons (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that people know the unsubscribe button is a ruse, it no longer buys legitimacy. Making a big national unsubscribe service that is trusted will give the email marketers another year or two of legitimacy.
The funny thing. Spammers themselves tend to hate spam. I should say, they hate the spam sent by competing spam shops. The competing spam dilutes the audience. They especially hate new spam shops. As a result, most would agree to proposals that reduce the over amount of spam...so long as they don't lose their share of the market.
I wouldn't be surprised to see existing spam shops try and form mechanisms that reduced spam, and closed the market to new comers. It would buy legitimacy and preserve their share of the market at a reduced cost.
Of course, the emarketers are in a tight situation...they know the other people in the group are emarketers looking for any advantage and that they cannot be trusted.
Not Surprising: just like drug dealers (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the same with this SPAM thing. They want fewer "little guys" around so they try to force the supply of SPAM down which increases the effectiveness of their own SPAM. Not altruistic by any means, but if it lands fewer junk emails in my box each day, it's fine by me.
Re:cannot stop spam. (Score:1, Insightful)
which I like to call "spam assassin" and "spammer assassin".
Hmm. Spammer assassin. Yes. That should work. I know what I now must do. Can you provide their physical addresses?
Re:Give them spam back (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Parent came from a spammer or spam supporter (Score:3, Insightful)
Double opt-in is when you ensure that the user relly does want to be sent an email (ie they have to physically do something to get email - it wont happen by default).
That's the first stage of opt-in.
Next you verify that they gave you the correct email address by sending a test email which asks them if they still actually want to recieve your email.
Again to continue they must physically do something - if they do nothing then wont be added to the list.
This is the second stage of opt-in.
There were two opt-in processes so that's why it gets called "double opt-in" - it's not rocket science.