An Idea To Can Spam
from the close,-but... dept
Everyone's got ideas these days to try to ditch spam. Here's the latest (probably unworkable) suggestion. It says that we should rewrite the email infrastructure to require "accept" codes. Thus, when someone emails you, not only do they need your address, they also need your special code. The theory is that you only give out the code to people you trust. For mailing lists, you give out a different code to each one - and if anyone violates a code by spamming you, you turn off that code. This is similar (though, more complex) to the various services that give you throwaway addresses for spam (i.e., they let you give out multiple addresses - all of which forward to a single address. If someone abuses one of those addresses, you just turn it off). There are way too many problems with this idea to discuss them all, but any idea that begins with "first, let's reconstruct one of the most basic parts of the internet..." is bound for trouble. This system also adds to the work every user has to do just to receive email - which is a recipe for failure. It also doesn't say how anyone can receive email from someone they haven't specifically given a code to. What if a friend of a friend wants to email me? Finally, what do you do when one of your trusted "codes" somehow makes it onto a spam list. There are simply too many problems with this idea to make it worth spending too much time thinking about.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trusted code or throwaway address?
Say you use the address for a list, and some spam bot lifts the address. Do you then unsubscribe from the list, ditch the address and resubscribe? In theory, yes. But in practice, it's way too much hassle.
I really think that the way to prevent spam is to have a really good filter coupled with tough legislation. And I don't think that the legislation should just be aimed at spammers, but also at the morons who make sending spam worthwhile. Maybe that's a bit radical, but surely spamming would become a lot less attractive if responding to it was illegal...
Although, I guess I shouldn't complain too much since almost none of the roughly 100 spam messages a day addressed to me personally actually make it through the filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its the economy stupid
Get off your asses and sue the clowns in small claims court. Make it more expensive to spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
throwaway addresses
I've found that owning my own domain gives me the ability to generate throwaway addresses at will with absolutely no setup time -- my "catch-all" address simply routes email that is addressed to an on-the-fly address through spamcop and into my inbox.
Should I get spam from one of those e-mail addresses, I know it instantly (what's this, kozmo@mypersonaldomain.com is sending me spam about Viagra!!!!), and can then put a redirect on my domain to spit the spam right back to the sender (or to the bastard web site that sold me out; in this example kozmo).
So best of all worlds -- on-the-fly address creation, with filtering, trackability, and "back-at-you" retribution. All for $35/year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: throwaway addresses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
That happened to me, when I registered my latest domain. What is interesting is that my contact email address is "spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx" Makes you wonder how much quality control goes into sending out spam.
I also get snail mail spam, well junk mail, addressed to that domain at business address. However, most of these seem to be legitimate businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I would rather see an infrastructure change where email servers test the senders email address prior to relaying so that only email with REAL from addresses are allowed period. This would at the very least add a factor of accountability where none exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about PGP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about PGP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
server-side rule files
http://u2.netgate.net/~sns/software/procmailrc_example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]