Experts See End to Computer 'Spam' by 2006 2

[BJCooperIT]

Today I was upset to find out that an e-mail I sent last Friday was routed back to me as undeliverable. Somehow my service provider's spam blocker decided it was spam and it did not appear in my mailbox. I just happened to look in the spam folder and there it was! This was an important follow-up after an interview and it was never delivered. As far as I could determine, there was no content that should have made it appear to be spam.

Now Bill Gates has predicted the demise of unsolicited commercial e-mail. I wonder, how this can be done with accuracy?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=2&u=/nm/20040126/tc_nm/tech_spam_dc

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[benlinkknilneb]

Shoot the spammers. One by one.

Seriously... the only way to beat it is to make it unprofitable. I like the idea mentioned in the article about an email fee unless waived by the recipient... although that creates issues with ease-of-use (one more thing to have to do on every message). I don't like the idea of paying for email... but that solution seems fair.

I think that anti-spam software is getting better... but each time they block *everything*, the spammers find some other way to get in. So this is probably not going to work.

Maybe the enforcement of the new law will help... but that's something that needs to be enforced world-wide, not just the US. Sure, most spammers originate in the US, but if we outlaw it, they'll just go somewhere that it's legal.

Ben

There's no place like 127.0.0.1.

 

[SQLSister]

BJ, as far as what may have made it be considered Spam, I have had things returned to me that I have sent becasue a forbidden word is part of another longer word which is valid in a business evironment. I've learned not to use the word analysis for instance. And for some strange reason, if I try to send a link through email from IE, I can't, but if I cut and paste it into an email I can, how wierd is that?

 

[jrbarnett]

This may be me being cynical, but I find the prediction of ending spam by 2005 very far fetched for the reasons already mentioned. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that this presentation was done in conjunction with an anti spam company called Brightmail, and if so, if their stock price has significantly increased since the announcement was made.

John

 

[jrbarnett]

Spot the mistake in my post: that should say 2006.

John

 

[Dimandja]

Also, email with the $ (especially in the subject line) sign may not make it. Heavily graphical emails are iffy, at best. If at all possible, reduce your vocabulary by avoiding "dirty" words such as: discount, sale, enlarge, etc...

Some providers use brute force to combat spam, while spammers are using their brains to get through. A losing battle if you ask me.

Dimandja

 

[jsteph]

I like that idea about the fee which can be waived. The ease of use issue could be tamed by where the default setting is to waive the charge only if it's read...ie, if you delete an email without reading then the sender is charged, else it's waived (issues with outlook's email-preview may exist here but not insurmountable).

Most people's m.o. is to just delete anything that's unfamiliar without reading it, so this would work out.

This might also have the beneficial side effect of getting rid of 'semi-spam', ie all those joke-lists from casual acquiantances that you're on but don't want to be on.
--jsteph

 

[dkediger]

SPAM ain't going anywhere until the base SMTP protocols are changed or superceded.

Its the 'spoofability' of the header info, plain and simple, that was, is, and will be lifeforce of SPAM. Until that is addressed in the protocols, no law on the books will have a high chance of success in prosecution of SPAMMERS.

 

[GwydionM]

The simplest solution is a fee for sending. It could be as little as 10 for a penny (or whatver your currency is). A really active e-mailer might manage 1000 sensible e-mails a day, that's a grand total of £1, hardly a burden. But someone who wants to annoy a million strangers would find it costing them £1000, which would wipe out the small profit they might hope from a few dozen of those million replying.

Fees would be collected as part of set-up by the service provider. Any e-mail not arriving from a regular service provider operating the system would be flagged as suspicious.

------------------
A view from the UK

 

[GwydionM]

However it will be done, I am sure it will be done, because it is getting in the way of commercial interests. There could be a big market for well-targetted circulars - i.e. people who look at three or four different astronomy sites might be interested in astronomy books and software, and so on.

As for BJCooperIT's problem, was there something in your e-mail that a brainless program could have misunderstood. School children get blocked from looking at innocuous websites that make too many mentions of 'naked eye astronomy'. And at work, we can intranaut in moderation but there are sensible bans on both pornography and offensive language. Which led me to be denied access to a BBC news report about a top manager called Mr Greg Dyke!

------------------
A view from the UK

 

[BJCooperIT]

After reviewing my e-mail, the only two words I can see that might have been flagged were "offer" and "exciting".

As in "offer my skills" and "exciting application".

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[BJCooperIT]

Does this mean that, due to the "spam police", we will have to eliminate certain words from our e-mail vocabulary?

I want a hard-copy!!!

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[jsteph]

Even the fee-based thing could work out well (as opposed to the fee-if-unread system). An ISP could calculate that, say the average person may send 300 emails per month. So let's say 1/2 penny U.S. per email, that's $1.50. They could change the rate structure from say, $19.95 per month to $18.50 + email fee. This keeps down the hue and cry that would come if it was just plain added on to the current fee.

And if someone's going to nitpick and say he emails more than 300 per months and this is really a rate increase, well tough--so you do 400 per month, or even 600--what's a buck-fifty when you're that popular? And personally, I'd even pay the 1/2 cent as a new, extra fee if it would stop the spamming--it's worth that to me, and I'll bet it also is worth it to many others.

In addition, think of the bandwith savings! Many spams are graphical or link to websites with lots of...ahem...graphics, so just having the outlook preview is schlepping scads of unneeded data across the wire, this multipllied countless millions of times.
--jsteph

 

[Dimandja]

Thanks to its rich choice of words, this thread is fast becoming unmailable. Also, when mailing a grocery list try not using such suspicious words as money, coupon, and spam. Lettuce is ok without qualifications.

Spammers of course don't get caught by such infantile filters.

A pointer on dealing with spam: DO NOT RESPOND! It can be tempting to click on that 'unsubscribe' link - you'll only confirm that your email address is hot, and on to the viagra queue you go.

Dimandja

 

[jrbarnett]

This paying for "e-postage" idea I had heard of before, but just wonder that the effect would be that all the free web mail services such as Hotmail, Yahoo, Mail.com etc would have to start charging because they start incurring costs on their members behalf for messages sent.

John

 

[BJCooperIT]

I shudder to think how much it would have cost me when my daughter's account was hijacked last week and used to spam half the internet.

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[DrJavaJoe]

I like the "computational puzzles" idea that will suck up the computer processing power. Have the computer solve this problem and then your email will be sent and then a new problem takes it's place or to send email type in the characters seen in this image. These should slow these $&*@!# down.

"Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'."

 

[sem]

So it was your dauter! I'm still getting new and new letters
I think that the laws should be adopted to the new computer era. Spamming must be treated as a crime, not as childish sports of enfante terrible. The same way as with wag who entertains himself by reporting about mine-strewn airplane by phone.

Regards, Dima

http://seminihin.narod.ru

 

[ecobb]

The simplest solution is a fee for sending.
What about businesses that may send out thousands of emails per month? No matter how small the fee is, the corporate world will scream about it and probably use it as an excuse to lay off more employees.

I like the idea mentioned in the article about an email fee unless waived by the recipient
Yeah, let's see what happens the next time my girlfriend is mad at me and I send an apology email to her...




Hope This Helps!

Ecobb

"Alright Brain, you don't like me, and I don't like you. But lets just do this, and I can get back to killing you with beer." - Homer Simpson

 

[jsteph]

the corporate world will scream about it and probably use it as an excuse to lay off more employees.

Even at my most cynical, I couldn't see the any company using that as an excuse to lay off even one employee. If the fee is say, 1/2 cent, they send such volume that it adds up to around $4000 per month (800,000 emails), then either they are a spammer, or they are so big and have so many customers/employees that the $4000 means nothing at all to them.

We've heard that the smtp weaknesses are to blame, which is a good point, but the one true thing we can always depend upon is Money. When you hit them in the pocketbook they'll stop.
--jsteph