On Spam Cures That Are Worse Than The Disease
from the guilty-until-proven-innocent dept
It appears that more people are beginning to realize that the virulently anti-spam crowd are often causing just as many (if not more) problems than they solve with their overly aggressive anti-spam filtering procedures. People are finding that they're wasting more time than they ever wasted on spam, trying to figure out how to get off of various spam block lists - or how to taylor their emails to not be caught in bounce-happy corporate spam filters. Clearly, spam is a problem, but what good is it when the "solution" is just as bad?
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
"[A] distinct problem is that some other user on a neighboring address to me really is a habitual spammer," wrote a friend. "And some Internet Service Providers will block the whole cluster of addresses, including me. When I object, [they] tell me to go back to my own provider and get rid of the spammer, and let them know when I have done so. I have done this a couple of times, but have tired of this, too."
In other words, bullying the blameless will do when the true objects of blame are next door but intractable.
While odious, cyber-geopolitically this approach -- perhaps, accidentally -- matches meatspace national policy in which the neighbors of terrorists or rogue nations are made legitimate targets if they do not immediately salute and remove the adjacent evil-doers.
While topical and incendiary, this totally misses the point. When spam is sent from an ISP, the ISP is notified that this is happening. There is no ambiguity here, it is clear that ISP X is harboring a spammer. When repeated spamming occurs and repeated notifications are ignored, other ISPs start refusing email from ISP X. This affects the customers of ISP X, who now find that they have purchased damaged goods, for all intents and purposes. But it's the behavior of their own ISP that has caused this. The policy of ISP X in harboring spammers and not booting them affects the customers of ISP X, as it should be.
This is not odious at all.
Reference: www.spews.org
[ link to this | view in thread ]