View Full Version : More on Spam
Mike AI
05-14-2003, 05:37 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ch_spammer_dc_3 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=13&u=/nm/20030514/ts_nm/tech_spammer_dc_3)
My Favorite quote "Spam itself is not -- of itself -- a crime," Spitzer said. "What makes this criminal conduct is the intersection of spamming with forgery and identity theft."
NY Attorney General Says 'Buffalo Spammer' Arrested
Wed May 14, 1:46 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The man known as the "Buffalo Spammer," who has allegedly sent 825 million unwanted e-mails, has been arrested and arraigned, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Wednesday.
Howard Carmack, a 36-year-old resident of Buffalo, New York, entered not guilty pleas before a Buffalo City Court judge and bail was set at $20,000, the Attorney General's office said in a statement.
"We believe Carmack is one of the largest (spammers) and believe there are a significant number of them," Spitzer said in a conference call. "Spammers who forge documentation and steal identities of others to create their e-mail traffic will be prosecuted."
Spam, or unwanted e-mail hawking everything from herbal sexual stimulants to mortgages, has become a growing issue as it now comprises as much as 75 percent of online messages.
About two-thirds of the spam that jams up in-boxes contains deceptive information such as false return addresses or pitches for miracle cures and work-at-home schemes, according to a recent analysis by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
The Attorney General's office said in a statement its Internet bureau receives more complaints about spam than about any other Internet-related issue.
"Spam itself is not -- of itself -- a crime," Spitzer said. "What makes this criminal conduct is the intersection of spamming with forgery and identity theft."
Carmack was charged with: stealing the identity of two residents to open Internet access accounts with EarthLink Inc. ; falsifying the business records of EarthLink; forging the headers of e-mail sent from the EarthLink accounts; and possessing a software program designed to create the forged e-mails, the Attorney General's office said in a statement.
Spitzer said his office worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and EarthLink, the nation's No. 3 Internet service provider. Last week EarthLink won a $16 million settlement and injunctive relief against Carmack in U.S. district court in Atlanta after a year-long investigation.
"He cost EarthLink more than $1 million," Spitzer charged. "And he opened in excess of 343 e-mail accounts using stolen identities."
The prosecution is the first by Spitzer under New York's identity theft statute, which was enacted in November.
Carmack's public defender was not immediately available for comment. The next court date is May 19.
Spitzer said more arrests in this case are not expected at the moment, but the investigation continues as Carmack's computer has been seized. He said investigations into other spammers are underway but declined to comment further.
The arrest comes as Louisiana Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin plans to introduce an anti-spam bill this week that is expected to move quickly through Congress.
TheEnforcer
05-14-2003, 06:09 PM
I'm not a big fan of spam but it is is no different than the junk mail you get in your physical mailbox nearly every day. Spitzer is correct though in that HOW one spams can be illegal.
RawAlex
05-14-2003, 06:17 PM
Enforcer, sorry, but any marketing delivered to your mailbox must (by US law) be delivered by the post office. They are rules, standards, and practices as to what can and cannot be delivered. I don't suspect I would get too many animal fuck incest child porn promotions via the regular mail.
I am also sure that I wouldn't get 1000 of the same spams from the same person day in and day out (cool stats, anyone?).
Even those that deliver door to door are subject to regulation regarding honesty in advertising, indentification of who the ad is from, etc.
No, online spam has nothing to do with circulars or other forms of direct marketting.
Alex
Peaches
05-14-2003, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by TheEnforcer@May 14 2003, 06:17 PM
I'm not a big fan of spam but it is is no different than the junk mail you get in your physical mailbox nearly every day. Spitzer is correct though in that HOW one spams can be illegal.
The mail you get in your mailbox is being paid by someone to be sent. Not so with spam. Not to mention, I'm sure you wouldn't be so happy about snail mail crap if it filled up all the mailboxes at your post office and when doing so, stopped the mail completely, made it take a month to get something, or cause you to lose some of your REAL mail. :(
TheEnforcer
05-14-2003, 08:35 PM
Jeesh, you'd think I would have said the "anti christ" was a cool guy!! :blink:
If you notice I did say there are things that are most definately illegal and I agree there needs to be some guidelines. But that doesn't mean I'm for a free for all mentality when it comes to spam. I'm just not as gung ho a crusader that most are about it and there are many that would just as soon see that adsvertising e-mails practically never get sent.
Hooper
05-14-2003, 09:51 PM
The mail you get in your mailbox is being paid by someone to be sent. Not so with spam.
Typical liberal rhetoric. *chortle* just kidding.. just wanted to know what it was like to be Torone for a minute :P
Seriously though. That is IMHO the AntiSpam lobby propaganda.
I'll confess. Ok. I Admit it.. I send mail. It's profitable. But it costs me nothing to send it? For hosting alone.. that means sending email and having a landing page we spend no less than $15000 a month. And we dont send *that much* mail compared to some people. :wnw:
I think it's important to define the two different kinds of mailers.
Type A ) The mailer who spends bookoo bucks on quality targeted lists (or at least steals good ones ;-).... mails responsibly (e.g. has a huge removal lists, honor those removals immediately, doesnt forge headers)
Type B ) The mailer who spends $99 on a cd, harvests names, mails using other people's servers, doesnt honor removes (if they even offer a remove option) and bears neither the burden or accountability.
Type B is what people realy mean when they say that spam doesnt cost anything.
Additionally, I would make the following argument:
With snail mail, sending regular mail is not free. It costs 38cents i think? Sending bulk snail mail comes out to far far far far less... i believe around 8 cents per mailer... add a few pennies for the actual paper and ink itself unless it's a really fancy mailer.
With Email... sending bulk mail is not free. Consumers however enjoy sending and receiving as much email as they want for free. Whether you send 1000 personal emails or 1 personal email a month your costs stay the same... just the cost of connectivity. With bulk mail your costs go UP the more you send and you have to pay for servers etc..etc.
People tend to make the argument that postal mail direct marketers bear a cost while email marketers do not. I say that is bullshit. Email marketers do spend a lot of money, and unlike our snail mail brethren, we pay far more per mail to send email than a consumer does.
FINALLY... the worst argument i hear, and i heard it over and over again during the cspan broadcast of the recent ftc forum on spam.. is that people dont have a choice of whether to "download" the message from the server. Sure. That's the nature of email. It's not my fault they set the email system up in a dumb way. But it's no different than the paper world. When you go to your mail box, you get a pamphlet, a catalog, an ad for a morgage or a credit card... you have to pull it out of the mail box. If you leave it there, after just a week your mailman stops delivery of your mail or at least starts throwing your mali in your yard.. and then you have to hoof your happy ass back to the house, straight to the garbage pail and throw away a little piece of tree that died just for that mail.
Today i checked my mailbox. Had nothing but ads, coupons, credit card ads and menus. I didnt "opt in".. i cant opt out.. i had to carry it.. i had to dispose of it.. and i caused more waste. Now you tell me that email is really any more of a burden on the consumer than snail junk mail.
Amen & pass the collection plate.
Last edited by Hooper at May 14 2003, 09:18 PM
RawAlex
05-14-2003, 11:25 PM
Hooper, if you had to haul 1000 envelopes a day out of your mailbox, and dispose of them each day, you would get tired of it. What would happen if half of them were of a sexual nature? Now you can't let your kids or anyone else empty your mailbox for you. What happens if you lose important mails because you don't have time to look through the 1000 pieces to find the one good one?
Your arguement isn't very strong - it is only strong when you are talking 10 pieces of spam email or 10 pieces of spam snail mail. Up that to 1000 pieces a day, and suddenly IT SUCKS!
Your two categories are funny. You forgot that the type B mailer reuses his list over and over again, without concern for bounces or cancels. He might mail that same list 20 times a day. You get a few hundred of those people going, and suddenly IT SUCKS!
Then again, hard to argue with you, you were the one with 30 emails to every person that signed up to your sites, right? :ph34r:
Alex
Hooper
05-14-2003, 11:36 PM
yep. but we had an existing biz relationship and it wasnt sent in bulk. thus it wasnt "UBE" or "BE".. it was just "E" which is my right to do. We now only send one but just cause enough of our webmasters were concerned about offending their surfers.
Your arguments are emotional in nature alex. Not logical. I'm not saying there shouldnt be labeling systems or blacklists (which move mail to a bulk box.. not automatically rejecting it). I'm just arguing that mailing does cost me money and that you have to look at regular mail to.
It's easy to get off topic. I know you dont like spam. Use spam assassin and a baysian filter ... a quick rule and the flagged emails into your bulk box for you to read when you choose to... automatically emtpy bulk every so many days or hours. You'll get 1% of what you get now. I use that system and spam doesnt interfere with my day. Then set your mail client to only download headers, not the entire body until you open it and you stopped wasting bandwidth.
The technical solutions are out there, they're free and easy and future solutions (most importantly labeling which would end everybody's arguments cause then surfers who dont want it just dont see those emails).
The only valid unemotional point you made was with regards to sending porn to people who dont want it. My only question would be, why the fuck are you letting your kids read your email? i cant imagine letting a child surf by themselves any more than i can imagine dropping them off downtown with the liquor stores, fake rolex salesmen and dirty old men in trench coats... the internet is not a private place. it's a big huge public street.
Last edited by Hooper at May 14 2003, 10:45 PM
RawAlex
05-15-2003, 12:04 AM
Hooper, you compare email spam to snail mail spam. I am doing the same thing. Take the amount of spam I get, and turn it into snail mail spam.
Suddenly, I could not send anyone under 18 to get the snail mail. You would have to redesign your home mailbox to secure it from children. You wouldn't be able to open your mail with children in the room, for fear of what is in the mail.
I don't suggest for a second that children should be let loose on the net without supervision. But I also think it revolting that you cannot even open your mail program with a child nearby for fear of why kind of porn / incest / kiddie porn / rape / extreme hardcore is going to get spammed to you next. it is revolting, and has reached levels that are making people scream.
Tell ya what. Everyone who asks, you pay for mail filtering software and someone to install it for each person who asks... then you can explain to me how it doesn't cost anything to receive spam.
Alex
Hooper
05-15-2003, 12:25 AM
baaah. i'm not going to sit here and argue with you over very tiny nit picking points about an analogy i made. yeah, you could bring up things like mud and rain.. and perhaps i dont have one of those super sized mail boxes. or what if my little flag wasnt up on a tuesday?
we're not disagreeing. i'm saying labeling is necessary.
i also find it odd that as a pornographer your checking your email with children looking at your screen. i have kids. i dont let them see the screen.. cause yes.. it's a dirty world. i also dont watch scary movies with her around, we dont watch porno with her around, we dont yell with her around.
it's nobody's job but your own to keep your children safe on the net. and there are 40 million ways to give your child an email address without them being subjected to spam.
the problem with anti spam people isnt their attitude, it's the fact that they believe the only way to keep bulk email from causing problems is to stop email. isnt that akin to a southern town deciding that most of the crimes are commited by black people so they get rid of anybody who's skin is less than white? cmon. bulk mail is here to stay. it just needs to be regulated.
how bout this scenario alex? it's common.
i surf the web, find a porn site offering free porn in my email. i enter a random address (perhaps it turns out that the email address belongs to an 80 year old grandmother or an 8 year old mom)... the site sends me a confirmation email cause they are abiding by the spews method of triple super secret optin.
well the grandma didnt enter her email, and you as a marketer have to entice them to do continue the optin.. so you include racy photos in the email saying "please confirm here".. but much like when you join a paysite you dont say "click here and please let us bilk you for a long time".. you dont say "please click here to get spammed daily with our shitty offers".. so instead you say something like "click here to confirm your request to see more hot pussy".
well you just offended the fuck outta somebody who didnt request it. your email was commercial, adult and unsolicited by the true recipient.. so you, the good optin manager are just as guilty of spamming as anybody... that is if the way you define a bad spammer is by "unsolicited, commercial and offensive".
RawAlex
05-15-2003, 01:54 AM
Hooper, I read what you posted three times... I am totally blown away by your attitude.
Grandma didn't ask for naughty pictures (nor did the 8 year old kid) - what gives you the idea that sending them those sorts of things is good? Are you senseless? You don't send porn to people that don't want it - I certainly don't suggest that step 1 in the opt in process should involve naughty pictures! That is STUPID, IGNORANT, and defeats the purpose. On that basis, just add them to your list and spam them already.
From that single point of view, the rest of what you are saying is pointless to discuss.
Alex
Last edited by RawAlex at May 15 2003, 01:05 AM
Hooper
05-15-2003, 02:59 AM
why is it pointless? i run adult sites. you opt in, i send you an adult confirmation.
if i run a books and magazines website why would you be blown away to see pictures of people reading in your confirmation mail?
you're failing to see that the person who did something wrong here is the person who opted in with somebody elses address. not the person who then acted on that lie.
is it different than me calling adam and eve and asking for catalogs to be sent to your mohter and then she gets upset with adam and eve because dirty ads are being sent to her?
No. adam and eve didnt send to your mom maliciously. they thought your mom was interested.
You proved my point. you're offended by the content itself, and who it was sent to, not the WHY i sent it to you or what commnication method i used.
Why arent you more offended by the forged submission? i mean. that is the person who knowingly forged an optin request.. why would you get mad at me the marketer for believeing the submitter.
The overall point? You cant stop UCE.
RawAlex
05-15-2003, 11:37 AM
Hooper, if you the marketter was paying attention, you would realize that people forge names. You would accept that people play tricks on other people. You would use a double opt in system to assure that only people that want your stuff would get it. Your request to opt in should be neutral.
under your system, you can just type in names and mail to them, because, well, someone else probably would have forged them one day.
No, it isn't that I have an issue with the content per se. I have an issue with the sheer volume of the stuff. Having to empty out my hotmail account every other day because of spam is a bit excessive, no? Worse, most of the spam is repeats... the same people over and over again offering porn, pills, and mortgages. Hundreds of them a day. It is pretty overwhelming.
Most spam uses faked headers, fake return addresses, and faked "cancel" systems. Many use the cancel list as a way of confirming that an address is good. Opting out of one gets you opted into another.
The actions of an single spammer in and of itself isn't a problem. But like "death of a thousand cuts", you get enough spammers are working and it really sucks. It uses up network resources, it uses up time... and it makes it impossible to find real mail amoungst your endless, repetitive missives.
If you don't think spam costs, consider how much AOL, Earthlink, or any other major ISP has to overbuild their network, their mail system, and such just to handle spam. Tell me again how it doesn't cost them anything... and how it doesn't cost the end user anything as a result.
Sorry Hooper, your just wrong, and all the self justification won't change it.
Alex
Hooper
05-15-2003, 12:40 PM
under your system, you can just type in names and mail to them
No. that would be illegal.
You've been brainwashed by the anti spam lobby i guess to believe that because one is sending email that one must surely be a criminal.
I have repetitively said that forging and fake cancels are wrong, bad and are the source of the problem. Rather than seeing that we AGREE on these matters you choose to nit pick because you truly want to lump all commercial email in as being spam.
Kinda like saying that kiddy porners and matrix content are the same because they both sell naked pictures. One of them is following the law the other is not.
As with ANYTHING there are people who break the laws... but because there are emailers who break the laws does not mean that those who abide by the law should be grouped together.
And i dont NEED to self justify... we make plenty of $ sending email, we honor removal requests, man a toll free number and havent once forged a header or written a deceptive subject line. We do it right and legally. You just dont like it.. and thats fine by me... feel free to opt out of any of our lists.
Last edited by Hooper at May 15 2003, 11:50 AM
RawAlex
05-15-2003, 02:14 PM
Hooper, you have said you mail to single opt in lists. IE: Someone types in a name, you mail to them.
That is just wrong - because there is no way to prove the box owner wants the mail. You can just type in addresses yourself and have the same level of consent to use the addresses.
You have no proof people want your mail, therefore you are spamming. Your only "proof" is an address in a box ONCE, could have been typed by anyone. Your spamming, get use to it. You put the U in UCE.
I run opt in lists, 3 of them. Double opted, mailed and confirmed, DIRECT opt out links, etc.
Alex
sarettah
05-15-2003, 02:26 PM
Just to jump in here....
I have been doing direct marketing (snailmail spam) pretty much for the past 10 years......
It is my viewpoint that the reason the "establishment" is down on email spam is because the postoffice does not get a cut. That plain and simple.
When we bulkmail, using barcodes, automated sorts, etc... We can get a cost per piece down to about a nickel. But that nickel goes to the post office. They are more than happy to take that piece and deliver it wherever you want for that nickel. They do not care what you are sending (other than blatantly illegal substances etc), they dont care if it is adult in nature (has to be marked adult, 21 and over only..) they deliver it.
There is not requirement in the snailmail world that a name be on an opt-in list. The DMA has a "no Send" list, but there is no law requiring a marketer to suppress from this list. Some of the states have "NO call" lists, but this covers voice telecommunications only, does not cover the mail.
You will not see any attempt to cut back on snailmail spam simply because the postoffice get's it's cut and makes a ton of money each year off of it. I will go so far as to say that without snailmail spam, the postoffice would be running into a constant deficit and mailing a first class letter would start approaching the $1.00 mark or more very quickly.
There is very little difference between snailmail spam and email spam with the exception that the "establishment" does not get it's cut. That is why across the years, there have been several initiatives to tax email... If the postoffice could figure out a way to get a penny per email, all of a sudden the powers that be would be all for spam email.... Because they have not figured out a sure way to get a piece of the action, they will continue to condemn and attempt to regulate email spam... But not for any of the "proclaimed" reasons (morality, server jamming, etc) It is simply because they cannot get a cut.
imho of course...........
:awinky:
sarettah
05-15-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@May 15 2003, 01:22 PM
Hooper, you have said you mail to single opt in lists. IE: Someone types in a name, you mail to them.
That is just wrong - because there is no way to prove the box owner wants the mail. You can just type in addresses yourself and have the same level of consent to use the addresses.
You have no proof people want your mail, therefore you are spamming. Your only "proof" is an address in a box ONCE, could have been typed by anyone. Your spamming, get use to it. You put the U in UCE.
There is no difference in the snailmail world. I have a friend that signed me up for over 100 samples and videos of "Rogain"... I in turn got him mailed over 100 samples of "depends". We constantly sign each other up for various snailmail products... Glaxo welcome is convinced that he has herpes and definitely needs Valtrex for "suppression", he gets 2 to 5 pieces a week from them, free coupons, etc...
I recently recieved a bunch of mail, that he caused, telling me how my "AIDS" could be taken care of (needless to say, I neither have or want "AIDS"). None of these promotions that we sign each other up for require any type of confirmation to start getting sent.... I have used phone to sign him up (they dont even confirm what number is calling), I have used Business Reply Cards to sign him up, I have used web sites to sign him up....
No double opt in, no nothing.
The powers that be are unfairly singleing out the email marketers because, like I said in my last post, THEY CAN'T GET A CUT !!!
imho of course.........
Hooper
05-15-2003, 03:18 PM
Alex , you didnt read my post.
I was referring to a double opt list. I'll make it easy for you.
Double Opt List Process.
1) Surfer arrives at site
2) Surfer enters email
3) Surfer is sent confirmation to activate optin (thus the double part)
What i was saying if you CHOSE TO READ is that whe surfers enter fake emails on step 2... the step 3 person is receiving UBE... the confirmation itself is UBE. And i GUARANTEE that YOU have people enter fake addresses and there are people receiving confirmation emails from you that they did not request.. THUS YOU ARE A SPAMMER because of hte person who entered a fake address in step 2.
That was my point. I hate arguing with you because you mis quote what i say.
Accordingly i'm done with this conversation. Anybody ELSE who would like to chat about the subject and have a firendly debat i'm happy to talk to.. but i'm sick of trying to discuss this with you.
RawAlex
05-15-2003, 05:05 PM
Hooper, you said:
well the grandma didnt enter her email, and you as a marketer have to entice them to do continue the optin.. so you include racy photos in the email saying "please confirm here".. but much like when you join a paysite you dont say "click here and please let us bilk you for a long time".. you dont say "please click here to get spammed daily with our shitty offers".. so instead you say something like "click here to confirm your request to see more hot pussy".
Sorry, but an email that just says "your email was entered in one of our collection boxes, would you like to receive this adult material" isn't UCE, it is part of the process. Once you start adding in racy pics, agressive (and some would consider rude) terms, etc, then you are over the line.
Oh, and, because you ain't reading, I run three lists... and wrote the software to run them... I know how a double opt in works... don't be simple.
Sarettah: I am sure that the post office, while happy to take your nickle a piece, will not deliver 1000 pieces per address per day. They have limits... if the demand got that high, I suspect you would see them raise prices to maximize returns...
There is a limit to what can come in your mailbox - there is no limit to what comes in spam.
Alex
sarettah
05-15-2003, 05:15 PM
Sarettah: I am sure that the post office, while happy to take your nickle a piece, will not deliver 1000 pieces per address per day. They have limits... if the demand got that high, I suspect you would see them raise prices to maximize returns...
There is a limit to what can come in your mailbox - there is no limit to what comes in spam.
************************************************** ******
The post office here will fill your mailbox with as much as it will hold and then will leave a note saying that you need to come to the post office and pick up the rest. If postage is paid on the piece, they will deliver it. Period, no limits, no legislation out there that controls the limits. So, yes, they will and do deliver 1000 pieces a day. Many businesses get 1000's and 1000's of pieces of mail a day. The post office makes no distinction other than the classification of the mail. First class is supposed to get higher priority through the system than bulk does. Stamped mail gets higher priority than metered.
There are limits on many peoples email boxes as to what they will hold after that the mail just bounces. Many ISP's limit the size of the email box, most free email limits it.
There really is no difference Alex. Except that they keep trying to legislate email. And I still maintain that is only because they don't get a cut.
RawAlex
05-15-2003, 05:47 PM
Haha... come to Canada, I put a little sticker on my mailbox that says "no ad mail" and the post office won't deliver bulk anything to me. I can put the same thing on my door, and circular companies are obliged not to deliver to me.
Why can't I do that with email?
Alex
meatloaf
05-15-2003, 06:25 PM
I personally think governments should be more focussed on cleaning up information on pipe bombs, guns etc. that KIDS search & find everyday. Then BUILD & USE!
How many people have ever died from junk mail??? How many people have died as a direct result of information on pipe bombs etc. directly from the net - it is at least 100+. How many people maimed (sp?).
Last edited by meatloaf at May 15 2003, 02:56 PM
meatloaf
05-15-2003, 06:56 PM
Alex, for you to impose what you deem to be the morally accepted format for the opt-in confirmation email is total crap.
With regards to opt-in confirmation emails who say's you can't customise/present it however you want?
There is no legislation on that matter, the list operator is going about his/her business as spews/spamcop & all the un-regulated anti-spam groups have requested.
Then they get crucified when they attempt to improve their results.
Next you will be saying paysites can't show bare pussy on the front page because well they are members so they haven't proven themselves as adults. Get real.
Last edited by meatloaf at May 15 2003, 03:05 PM
sarettah
05-15-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@May 15 2003, 04:55 PM
Haha... come to Canada, I put a little sticker on my mailbox that says "no ad mail" and the post office won't deliver bulk anything to me. I can put the same thing on my door, and circular companies are obliged not to deliver to me.
Why can't I do that with email?
Alex
I think there is a way here (at least in some localities) to tell them not to deliver bulk mail... We also have local classifications of mail that they deliver to "occupant"/"resident" which runs under the price of regular bulk rates and you can tell them not to deliver that too....
Most junkmail though, is not necessarilly delivered or identified as bulk mail... At least a good piece won't be. There are all sorts of rates between "bulk" and "First Class" including many many different versions of "Non Profit".... We do one called "Pre Canceled Stamps" that looks like first class, smells like first class, but gets delivered at quite a bit lower than first class... Basically, if you can automate the presort and print a barcode on it, then you can go at a much lower rate than first class and not have it be identified as bulk... Therefore, it would still get delivered.....
and the spoofing of return address, etc that goes on in email spam goes on in snailmail spam too.... Companies pay a lot of money to design mailings to look like they came from someone else but still stay on the right side of legal, just to get you to open the piece...
I don't know what the formula is in email.... but on mailings via snail, the general rule of thumb is hit them at least 3 times..... The first one you gotta figure goes in the trash... The second one goes on the desk for a couple of days and then in the trash... The third one might actually get opened....
A good direct mail company will track responses.... If you responded to the first drop, you either wont see the second, or you will get more of a personalized response as a second... If you respond to the second, etc....
And snailmail lists get sold just as easily as email lists, whether you ever actually agreed to be sold or not....
Anyway, the recent actions on email spam seem to concentrate on "misrepresentation" being the worst part.... But this has been common in ALL MaARKETING since the second ever product came along... I say the second product, because the first product was marketed with nothing else out there... Products commonly try to look like more successful items in the competitions line.... On the shelf at the liquor store, right alongside RonRico Rum, you will see RonRIO rum... Label looks the same, spelling at a glance looks the same... Idea is that you will reach for a RonRico and you will get a RonRio..... This is extremely common in the liquor/wine business..... I also notice lots of lookalikes at the grocery store and in my mail every day.....
So, why is "Misrepresentation" such a crime in the email marketing industry ? I tell you, imho, it is because the feds don't get a cut.. That simple... Products on the shelf they get taxes on, hell, to put that label on the RonRio bottle, the label had to be approved for each state it is in and also at the federal level... Each of these entities of course charged for the process of approving the label... They got their cut, what the hell do they care if RonRio trys to grab RonRicos market share, that is RonRicos problem, not the governments....
As it should be in a free enterprise system......
sarettah
05-15-2003, 08:23 PM
Why can't I do that with email?
*****************************
That is what the SPAM blocking programs are all about.... It is not yet an exact science though.....
But it does create a whole new niche in software :)
(door alongside Norton Antivirus Main Entrance is labeled as the Norton Virus Main Entrance...lol....there has to be someway that they move on those definitions so fast... Door alongside "Ant Spam Division" will say "SPAM division"... People who design the Anti Spam protection will be the best able to deliver a way around the Anti SPAM...and then be able to sell upgrades to block it......lololol.... Life is such a scam.....)
Last edited by sarettah at May 15 2003, 07:32 PM
RawAlex
05-15-2003, 08:53 PM
sarettah, the problem is, if I don't want spam, I have to spend money. Spammers can occupy my mail, my time, and my computer equipment without permission, and i have to pay to get rid of them.
Is it right that AOL (who isn't getting paid by spammers) has to increase the size of their mail network to handle spam? Is it right that someone dialing up to the net to get their mail might have to spend 10 - 15 extra minutes on line because it takes so long to download spam? It is right that people can't accept mail because their ISP has to limit size of the mailbox, and it is full of spam?
When email spam is subject to the same legal restrictions as regular delivered mail, and spammers start paying by the piece to be able to deliver that mail, then the discussion has some merit. Up until that point, spammers are just making the rest of us pay for their marketing campaigns... not a really acceptable situation, overall.
Alex
Hooper
05-15-2003, 09:43 PM
So if spammers have to pay by the piece then i assume you'll be more than happy to pay triple to quadruple the rate for each and every non bulk mail you send.
What about your optin lists? Do you believe you should be able to send those for free as well?
The hypocrisy amazes me.. the internet is a living thriving thing.. it is not YOUR internet.. it is not private.. it's not my internet.. it's everybody's internet. It's like walking down the street.. If you want privacy.. create an INTRAnet... if i invade your intranet.. then i'm violating computer crimes laws...
You want to be able to communicate with everybody freely.. you want everything to be free... and you want profit makers to bear the burden for your entertainment. Cept you wanna make money on porn, you want your servers to be inexpensive (*cough*subsidised by mailers since they pay about 10x what you pay just to exist*cough*) and you want your email box to be 100% empty of everything that you did not opt in to.
Am i on target?
Originally posted by Hooper@May 15 2003, 08:51 PM
The hypocrisy amazes me.. the internet is a living thriving thing.. it is not YOUR internet.. it is not private.. it's not my internet.. it's everybody's internet. It's like walking down the street.. If you want privacy.. create an INTRAnet... if i invade your intranet.. then i'm violating computer crimes laws...
Hooper, the Internet may not be mine, but the servers the mail is sent to are, the computer it ends up on is, and the costs associated come from my pocket.
If you want to compare the Internet to walking down the street, then the Internet needs to be edited in the same way a street is ... There are no beastiality stores on 5th avenue, there's no kiddy porn outlet, there's no rape taking place in the middle of the road.
You want to be able to communicate with everybody freely.. you want everything to be free... and you want profit makers to bear the burden for your entertainment. Cept you wanna make money on porn, you want your servers to be inexpensive (*cough*subsidised by mailers since they pay about 10x what you pay just to exist*cough*) and you want your email box to be 100% empty of everything that you did not opt in to.
Am i on target?
oh puhlease
subsidized by mailers?!?!? Mailers pay 10 times what others pay?!?
get a grip on reality hooper, all those dollars you are making are starting to go to your head.
I hope you have a planB for the day your email won't reach anybody on aol or hotmail addresses or anyone using a microsoft email program, or for when you piss off someone just a bit too much with your 30 emails at a time trick and can't find hosting anywhere but russia. It would be sad to watch you go the path of so many other spammers before you who weren't prepared for a change ... or worse, sued by aol.
I'd love to be in the courtroom when you try to defend yourself using the things you've said in this thread.
sarettah
05-15-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by cj@May 15 2003, 09:23 PM
There are no beastiality stores on 5th avenue, there's no kiddy porn outlet, there's no rape taking place in the middle of the road.
Apparently, you've never been to New York.....
:P :P :P :P :nyanya:
Arguing that because spam is a more cost effective form of marketing therefore it's WORSE than snail mail is ridiculous.
The problem with this whole issue is that people who allow "free unrestricted access" to their mailboxes will get things they don't necessarily want. Why is this so hard to understand?????
What would you suggest I do if my house didn't have doors and/or locks and everytime I come home there are strange people in my house doing things that I don't like them to do in there??
Should I go to Home Depot and buy some doors and locks or should I just shake my hand at them and blame them that it's wrong because staying in my home is cheaper than renting a hotel room??
People need to take responsibility for their own email boxes. If you don't like what's in there, then you need to use one of the *many* creative tools for dealing with it. (ie: Cloudmark Spamnet, Spam Arrest... etc, etc..)
People seem to be more upset about spam and the extra time it takes to hit delete than they are about Malicious computer virii.... It doesn't make sense, a computer virus can DAMAGE the data on your hard disk!! Yet people seem to understand that because there are "bad people" out there, they need to scan their files with a virus scanner before they just run them.
Spammers will not go away as long as there is money to be made. The only way to cut off the money is to get people who receive spam smarten up and stop accepting mail from people or companies they don't know or trust.
<stepping down from soapbox>
Peaches
05-15-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by KC@May 15 2003, 10:40 PM
People need to take responsibility for their own email boxes. If you don't like what's in there, then you need to use one of the *many* creative tools for dealing with it. (ie: Cloudmark Spamnet, Spam Arrest... etc, etc..)
How does that help the AOL's, Earthlink's, and all the hundreds of smaller ISP's that are having to use their servers to process it?
I'd love to filter all the spam I get - over 1000 so far today and I'm a nobody - but once I start filtering out EVERY word they use, I dump "good" emails. :angry: Shok sent me pictures of his kids the other day and I didn't even know it until I started going through my attachments (which I also have to delete every day). Yeah, I know, he's a damn spammer :awinky: , but THOSE I wanted, hehehe.
Now, I'll be honest: I don't have a mail server, so maybe I'm talking about my big butt that the end user blocking it doesn't help the ISP. I'm just going by what I've read. :okthumb:
KC, I use a spam filter, quite a good one. today it was sent 550 messages which I had to pay to filter before I could read my important mail. I spend a few hours every few weeks updating my filters and an hour every day sorting through stuff that has gotten past 1000's of filters.
We are about to launch on a new series of jobs, that we really don't have the time for, to set up a new spam filtering system which will bounce back emails and send complaints in 1 movement.
You are comparing this to leaving doors unlocked in your home!?!?!? wtf does that have to do with anything?
If I left my door unlocked and someone let themselves into my home THEY are in the wrong. Its my home, i pay for it, i own the things inside it and i choose who I invite into it - if anyone enters uninvited, they are not welcome and will be asked to leave.
Using your bizaare comparison, those who send emails deliberately to escape my filters (example v.I-A.G.r-a) are the equivalent to a criminal who breaks the locks on my home to get inside.
If my house gets broken into, should i just say 'oh well i should have had more locks?'
Let me know if you'd like to discuss spam, home invasion is not really that interesting to me.
Hooper
05-15-2003, 11:40 PM
cj i'm arguing a point. i send a LOT less email than you probably think i do... i really dont know why people think we spam much.. just because i'm vocal about my beliefs i guess. we could stop mailing today and not even notice. it is a revenue stream... one of many. i just happen to believe that anti spam advocates are terribly wrong.
i dont know where you EVER got that we send 30 mails to anybody (unless you are actually believing what alex says). When we only had 15 sites on quickbuck... after somebody entered their email on our site but didnt complete a transaction we sent them 1 offer for each of our sites all at once... the purpose was simply to grab their attention in the same way that an exit console that is 200x200 is less effective than a full screen console. they were mailed one time with proof of their prior relationship with us, not added to any lists. i dont see how that is any different than a car salesman trying to make a last ditch attempt at a sale. now that we have a lot more sites we no longer send one for each site, we send one.
you shouldnt shake your finger at me so vigorously and personally. i'm just in here to chat about the issues.
Originally posted by cj@May 15 2003, 10:01 PM
Let me know if you'd like to discuss spam, home invasion is not really that interesting to me.
My point is... If you accept mail from anyone, then don't be suprised when you get unwanted mail.
I used to get ICQ spam all the time, until I checked a little box that said "don't accept messages from people not on your contact list". If people would start assigning trust levels to senders and not just pretend like people will be responsible about what they send.
I'm not saying spammers are good, I'm saying the people that complain about spam should either be realistic and do something PRODUCTIVE about stopping it.
If someone is dumb enough to just whine and complain about spam, rather than finding a solution that works deserves to have their time wasted!!! <g>
Originally posted by Hooper@May 15 2003, 10:48 PM
cj i'm arguing a point. i send a LOT less email than you probably think i do... i really dont know why people think we spam much.. just because i'm vocal about my beliefs i guess. we could stop mailing today and not even notice. it is a revenue stream... one of many. i just happen to believe that anti spam advocates are terribly wrong.
i dont know where you EVER got that we send 30 mails to anybody (unless you are actually believing what alex says). When we only had 15 sites on quickbuck... after somebody entered their email on our site but didnt complete a transaction we sent them 1 offer for each of our sites all at once... the purpose was simply to grab their attention in the same way that an exit console that is 200x200 is less effective than a full screen console. they were mailed one time with proof of their prior relationship with us, not added to any lists. i dont see how that is any different than a car salesman trying to make a last ditch attempt at a sale. now that we have a lot more sites we no longer send one for each site, we send one.
you shouldnt shake your finger at me so vigorously and personally. i'm just in here to chat about the issues.
I was thinking of a thread from a few weeks back and i was sure you advocated sending 30 emails to the 1 address ... i may have my wires crossed.
my apologies for the finger shaking
Originally posted by KC@May 15 2003, 10:51 PM
My point is... If you accept mail from anyone, then don't be suprised when you get unwanted mail.
I used to get ICQ spam all the time, until I checked a little box that said "don't accept messages from people not on your contact list". If people would start assigning trust levels to senders and not just pretend like people will be responsible about what they send.
I'm not saying spammers are good, I'm saying the people that complain about spam should either be realistic and do something PRODUCTIVE about stopping it.
If someone is dumb enough to just whine and complain about spam, rather than finding a solution that works deserves to have their time wasted!!! <g>
KC, you debate like Mike.
You have no logic to your point ... especially if you have to resort to calling people dumb to conclude it.
Those who complain about spam ARE doing something realistic and productive - they are complaining about it, and TRYING to filter it. That's productive, because when enough people complain things happen. Not just things like spam being stopped at the source, but things like new software being written by folks who see a need in the market, things like aol & microsoft teaming up etc ...
I can't believe you ended your point with something as lame as 'if someone is dumb enough they deserve to have their time wasted'.
You think people get their time wasted because they are dumb!!??!? Um ...... rrrriiiiiight ... its got nothing to do with the fact that spam is completely out of control at all!! Not every Internet user works with the Internet on a daily basis - the group you are surrounded by here are far from dumb when it comes to the Internet and its issues. Your 'sit back and watch' attitude is fine for you oh great computer genius, but what about the rest of the world that use their email for business? Who pays for the expertise to set up the spam solution?
I've got someone on their way to your place to throw rotten eggs at your front door for a few hours ... if you don't want them to do that i suggest you put a plastic cover over your entire house. I can sell you a large plastic dome for 1.2 million that should do the trick ... you'd be dumb not to buy it, because otherwise you'll have rotten eggs everywhere :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Hooper
05-16-2003, 12:26 AM
i'm a bit confused by your position cj. didnt you make a lot of money because of spam?
not pointing fingers, just asking.
Originally posted by sarettah@May 15 2003, 10:39 AM
There is no difference in the snailmail world. I have a friend that signed me up for over 100 samples and videos of "Rogain"... I in turn got him mailed over 100 samples of "depends". We constantly sign each other up for various snailmail products... Glaxo welcome is convinced that he has herpes and definitely needs Valtrex for "suppression", he gets 2 to 5 pieces a week from them, free coupons, etc...
I recently recieved a bunch of mail, that he caused, telling me how my "AIDS" could be taken care of (needless to say, I neither have or want "AIDS"). None of these promotions that we sign each other up for require any type of confirmation to start getting sent.... I have used phone to sign him up (they dont even confirm what number is calling), I have used Business Reply Cards to sign him up, I have used web sites to sign him up....
hahaha! thats funny stuff!
:okthumb:
Originally posted by Hooper@May 15 2003, 11:34 PM
i'm a bit confused by your position cj. didnt you make a lot of money because of spam?
not pointing fingers, just asking.
quite simply ... no ... my views have always been this way. I have worked for people who have made money off spam, I know lots of webmasters who make their money off spam, but they always get the same nagging.
the money I have personally made from bulk email in the 5 years i've been in the industry would be less than 4 figures.
Originally posted by cj@May 16 2003, 12:01 AM
but they always get the same nagging.
actually that part isn't 100% true
most of the time i couldn't be bothered.
Originally posted by cj@May 15 2003, 11:21 PM
I've got someone on their way to your place to throw rotten eggs at your front door for a few hours ... if you don't want them to do that i suggest you put a plastic cover over your entire house. I can sell you a large plastic dome for 1.2 million that should do the trick ... you'd be dumb not to buy it, because otherwise you'll have rotten eggs everywhere :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If I had an unrelenting supply of people throwing eggs at my house, I WOULD probably buy a plastic dome to surround it.. You made my point for me!!!
I might even install rotten egg launchers on the top of my own house to return fire ;) haha
People have been complaining about spam since email first began. The complaining has only gotten louder and the volume of spam has only increased. In my book, I'd say that 10+ years of bitching about a problem with no solution in sight is UNPRODUCTIVE... but maybe I'm just impatient. :)
Originally posted by cj@May 16 2003, 12:05 AM
actually that part isn't 100% true
most of the time i couldn't be bothered.
CJ only likes to argue with people on Oprano ;)
Originally posted by KC+May 16 2003, 01:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ May 16 2003, 01:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--cj@May 15 2003, 11:21 PM
I've got someone on their way to your place to throw rotten eggs at your front door for a few hours ... if you don't want them to do that i suggest you put a plastic cover over your entire house. I can sell you a large plastic dome for 1.2 million that should do the trick ... you'd be dumb not to buy it, because otherwise you'll have rotten eggs everywhere :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If I had an unrelenting supply of people throwing eggs at my house, I WOULD probably buy a plastic dome to surround it.. You made my point for me!!!
I might even install rotten egg launchers on the top of my own house to return fire ;) haha
People have been complaining about spam since email first began. The complaining has only gotten louder and the volume of spam has only increased. In my book, I'd say that 10+ years of bitching about a problem with no solution in sight is UNPRODUCTIVE... but maybe I'm just impatient. :)[/b][/quote]
i'd call the police
it would be cheaper, easier, and waste less of my time
but each to their own
:okthumb:
Originally posted by KC+May 16 2003, 01:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ May 16 2003, 01:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--cj@May 16 2003, 12:05 AM
actually that part isn't 100% true
most of the time i couldn't be bothered.
CJ only likes to argue with people on Oprano ;)[/b][/quote]
i was debating ...
calling people dumb is arguing
you know what they say about kitchens and heat ...
Originally posted by cj@May 16 2003, 03:01 AM
i'd call the police
it would be cheaper, easier, and waste less of my time
but each to their own
:okthumb:
In the spam world, if you called the police it would fall upon deaf ears.
Spam is here and won't go away no matter how much whining or complaining you do. Good luck!:)
I'm going to go shine my house's plastic bubble, I picked it up at Home Depot tonight!
Originally posted by cj@May 16 2003, 03:02 AM
you know what they say about kitchens and heat ...
What do they say? I'm not a cook. :agrin:
:bwave:
drop by again soon!
good to see you!
Dianna Vesta
05-16-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by sarettah@May 15 2003, 01:34 PM
Just to jump in here....
I have been doing direct marketing (snailmail spam) pretty much for the past 10 years......
It is my viewpoint that the reason the "establishment" is down on email spam is because the postoffice does not get a cut. That plain and simple.
lol- I've always thought the same thing.
Land of the free... home of the brave. Right!
Business as usual. :rokk:
sharky
05-16-2003, 11:31 AM
I see there are a few closed-minded people here.
Fact of the matter is
1) noone should send 1000 of the same emails to the same email address. (if you have 1000 different email addresses, it's a little different!)
2) Irresponsible spammers are giving responsible mailers a bad rap. Not everyone uses their removes list as a source for valid email addresses.
3) If the mailers are responsible and abide by many of the state laws, by using either "ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT" in their subject lines, anyone can filter that email without ever having to look at it. Problem solved
4) If email users employ a simple filter as I mentioned above, they will easily filter out any email I, and any other RESPONSIBLE mailer, send.
5) Adult mailers should only have qualified lists. Meaning double opt-in or adult site member/user lists. Nothing else. Don't promote adult to a list you obtained that targets car enthusiasts or something else non-adult related.
6) Always process removes promptly.
7) Handle any complaints responsibly.
T-Rav
05-16-2003, 12:14 PM
Everyone arguing that spam isn't that bad, or is "pro-spam"...be careful, because last time I expressed that opinion some jack ass thought it would be cute to sign me up on a bunch of spam lists. Real fucking funny...anyway it did not prove a point or change my opinions regarding spam.
It's just not that big of a deal. Most of the anti-spam arguments are based on propaganda and bullshit in my opinion. I agree with saretta, I think most of the public outcry is because the government isn't getting their cut. Neither is AOL or Microsoft, so they are going to brainwash everyone into thinking spam will bring the end of the world if we don't stop it now. As soon as these fuckers get their cut, you won't hear so much about it.
I also agree with Hooper. The Internet is a public place. A very free public place. I personally believe it should be policed as little as possible, and people if they choose to get on the Internet should accept personal responsibility for what happens on it. After all, no one is forcing you to check your email...holding a gun to your head saying "check your email or you get a bullet in the brain".
The Internet is one of the few places we have left where pretty much everything goes. We are free to do as we please for the most part. And yes there will be things about it you or I don't like, but you have to accept those or lose some other freedoms because of legislation or "policing". I don't want that.
If you don't like it...don't get on the Internet, or create your own Intranet. Find another way to make your money or get your entertainment. I doubt you will be missed.
Hooper
05-16-2003, 12:58 PM
i was just thinking.. what would happen if everybody used "ADV" and it became law (and yes, the usa can legislate other countries... at least the majority of them.. and in the end the major bandwidth providers are all based out of countries that have strong ties with the usa.)?
follow me here...
everybody begins using it... eventually all commercial email is getting filtered into your "Bulk" box... this decreases the financial return of bulk mailing substantially but also means that marketers are no longer viewed as criminals. places like "spews" may still exist, but they would no longer have much purpose aside from bitching about "fast money grab" mailers who do not label.
As the value drops until it eventually levels out at some point two things happen.
now that it is a major crime to send advertisements without labeling you will only see the occasionaly fast money grab spammer and complaints suddenly actually carry weight because it's no longer a question of whether you opted in or not, it's a question of whether it was labeled properly (and yes, set up a filter to move all lists you DID opt into into your inbox even though they are labeled as bulk)
Additionally because now the law allows advertisments to be sent mailers no longer have to worry about hosting and software because they can send away without paying for special software to rotate ip's.. special hosts who turn a blind eye.. expensive landing hosts that are only 80% reliable at best. Accordingly the costs of mailing go down.
So in summary, a labeling system will
1) decrease the financial returns of mailing
2) decrease the costs of mailing.
3) eliminate the legal exposure of marketers
RawAlex
05-16-2003, 02:28 PM
Hooper, nice idea, but it would be followed by forgeign spammers not using ADV and ending up in your main mail, and everyone would move off shore, and things would still be the same.
I still get at least one spam per week from child porn or "teen nudes" sites... making stuff illegal didn't make it stop.
You assume everyone will play by the rules, and in reality they won't. People are stupid enough to spam the same list over and over again with the EXACT same offer, for the EXACT same product... it is sad, and it is a waste.
The US can legislate until they are blue in the face, it just ain't going to change much of anything, it will just move the problem.
Alex
Originally posted by Hooper@May 16 2003, 12:06 PM
i was just thinking.. what would happen if everybody used "ADV" and it became law (and yes, the usa can legislate other countries... at least the majority of them.. and in the end the major bandwidth providers are all based out of countries that have strong ties with the usa.)?
follow me here...
everybody begins using it... eventually all commercial email is getting filtered into your "Bulk" box... this decreases the financial return of bulk mailing substantially but also means that marketers are no longer viewed as criminals. places like "spews" may still exist, but they would no longer have much purpose aside from bitching about "fast money grab" mailers who do not label.
As the value drops until it eventually levels out at some point two things happen.
now that it is a major crime to send advertisements without labeling you will only see the occasionaly fast money grab spammer and complaints suddenly actually carry weight because it's no longer a question of whether you opted in or not, it's a question of whether it was labeled properly (and yes, set up a filter to move all lists you DID opt into into your inbox even though they are labeled as bulk)
Additionally because now the law allows advertisments to be sent mailers no longer have to worry about hosting and software because they can send away without paying for special software to rotate ip's.. special hosts who turn a blind eye.. expensive landing hosts that are only 80% reliable at best. Accordingly the costs of mailing go down.
So in summary, a labeling system will
1) decrease the financial returns of mailing
2) decrease the costs of mailing.
3) eliminate the legal exposure of marketers
California already has such a law on the books. It's had little or no effect.
Maybe if it was a national effort it would be more effective, however I still think it's too difficult to enforce and therefore woulndn't be effective.
I know CJ loves analogies, so I'll throw one more out. :) And no CJ, it's not about farming.....
Getting spammers to all follow a "code of conduct" would be much harder than getting 100,000+ (a rough guess at the number of spammers nationwide or at least in the world) untethered donkeys to follow you.
Spam will remain a problem until a solution to block all unsolicted email, not just UCE is widely deployed.
It can't be solved with legistlation.. Even if you give spammers the death penalty for getting caught spamming... the spam will still flow! Legistlation isn't the answer.
Originally posted by RawAlex@May 16 2003, 01:36 PM
The US can legislate until they are blue in the face, it just ain't going to change much of anything, it will just move the problem.
I agree, I think the problem can only be solved with technology.
The same way technology has given us virus scanners and encryption.. technology will eventually solve the problem.
RawAlex
05-16-2003, 02:56 PM
The solution requires that SMTP is replaced with something secure, that confirms the sender, limits access to only valid senders, and throttles output to stop major spew attacks.
All mail should be 100% traceable. ISPs should be able to say, without a doubt, exactly where an email comes from.
Until them, spammers will spam.
Alex
Winetalk.com
05-16-2003, 03:20 PM
RawAlex,
like it or not,
but spammers will have bigger grave stones than you will
;-)))
So he/she with the biggest grave stones wins this game we call life? ;-)))
I better start making plans for my own pyramid ;-)))
Winetalk.com
05-16-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Rolo@May 16 2003, 02:41 PM
So he/she with the biggest grave stones wins this game we call life? ;-)))
I better start making plans for my own pyramid ;-)))
yeap, you got it
;-))
why do you think Jews bringt stones when they visit the dead and not flowers?
;-))))
the one with bigger stone - wins,
and I collect (and produce) mine when I can
http://cotac.com/stone/stone1.jpg
quote from one Russian movie...
"The happiness was big, very big,
than it got smaller and smaller,
'till it reached the size of a kidney stone"
;-)))
RawAlex
05-16-2003, 06:17 PM
Serge, the size of the headstone doesn't interest me, I will be obviously gone and buried at that point... if that is the reason to spam, then I have no reason to spam.
Alex
SykkBoy
05-16-2003, 07:17 PM
http://dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?a...rticle_id=23914 (http://dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=23914)
hmmm, basically FTC is giving up and relying on admins to close their open relays.....
something odd in that article:
Clickformail.com, Austin, TX, accused by the FTC of charging consumers $49.95 for access to credit card offers they could have obtained for free by using an Internet search engine.
Why is that illegal? They are providing information people are willing to pay for...maybe people that don't have the time or skills to look up? Should it then be illegal for the kid who mows our lawn to charge us...since I could do it myself for free?
I used to make money writing "how-to" booklets and placing tiny classified ads in newspapers and made a nice little chunk of change...should that be illegal since people could have went and found that information themselves while I took the time to research it and put it into a viable package for them???
sometimes I wonder about the priorities of the fucking government...shouldn't we be spending this money on more bombs to drop on brown people who live in the desert?
I'm all for protecting people from ripoffs and scams like the Nigerian Letter Scam, but this is ridiculous.....
sextoyking
05-16-2003, 07:50 PM
Good Points Sykk!!!
I mean shit now Fast food places get sued for making ppl fat??
LOL
Originally posted by sharky@May 16 2003, 10:39 AM
I see there are a few closed-minded people here.
Fact of the matter is
1) noone should send 1000 of the same emails to the same email address. (if you have 1000 different email addresses, it's a little different!)
2) Irresponsible spammers are giving responsible mailers a bad rap. Not everyone uses their removes list as a source for valid email addresses.
3) If the mailers are responsible and abide by many of the state laws, by using either "ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT" in their subject lines, anyone can filter that email without ever having to look at it. Problem solved
4) If email users employ a simple filter as I mentioned above, they will easily filter out any email I, and any other RESPONSIBLE mailer, send.
5) Adult mailers should only have qualified lists. Meaning double opt-in or adult site member/user lists. Nothing else. Don't promote adult to a list you obtained that targets car enthusiasts or something else non-adult related.
6) Always process removes promptly.
7) Handle any complaints responsibly.
:okthumb:
Sharky, you just described my perfect world!
I LOVE the principal of direct marketing, and the Internet allows so many amazing ways to target your audience like asking them their interests and finding out whether the surfer likes knitting or tennis, is male or female and how much money they earn each year ...
But there are always greedy folks who want the biggest headstone.
Serge, the bulk of spammers will be lucky if they can afford a burial plot when they die ... not all spammers are as clever & stable as those you know of. Drop by for a visit and I'll organise a dinner with our mentally challenged spammer population. Not too many bright sparks.
Originally posted by T-Rav@May 16 2003, 11:22 AM
It's just not that big of a deal. Most of the anti-spam arguments are based on propaganda and bullshit in my opinion. I agree with saretta, I think most of the public outcry is because the government isn't getting their cut. Neither is AOL or Microsoft, so they are going to brainwash everyone into thinking spam will bring the end of the world if we don't stop it now. As soon as these fuckers get their cut, you won't hear so much about it.
*sigh*
It must be nice for you to have so little other things to do with your time that you have time to delete spam every day.
Or perhaps you are one of those who gets 10 a day and can't see what the rest of us are complaining about? That's ok ... when you've been on the net a little longer & your name is on every remove list around you might understand ... the fact that you get so little spam that you can tell that someone added your address to a few spam lists is pretty funny ... you must have had a lot before if you noticed that. :biglaugh:
What do you mean spam arguments are based on propaganda & bullshit?! What's propaganda about the points I have made so far? They are my points, not the governments points ... or did you just jump in and let your fingers vomit on the keyboard?
There is more than public outcry here ... there are adult webmasters who UNDERSTAND the way it all works but who are still sick of dealing with so much spam. My views on spam have nothing to do with the government, so save the brainwashed by microsoft crap and actually bother to read what we are talking about ...
AOL & Microsoft ARE going to do something - it will probably not be a better solution than we have now but I'm curious to see what it is they are thinking will solve the problem.
I also agree with Hooper. The Internet is a public place. A very free public place. I personally believe it should be policed as little as possible, and people if they choose to get on the Internet should accept personal responsibility for what happens on it. After all, no one is forcing you to check your email...holding a gun to your head saying "check your email or you get a bullet in the brain".
wtf?!?! the Internet is free? um .... i actually pay for my internet access, i pay for my computer and i pay for the server that directs my mail to me. what internet are you using?
and you are saying because nobody holds a gun to my head to use email that its my fault i get spam because i choose to use email? LMAO that's even lamer than KC's "if you are too dumb to filter spam you deserve to get it".
If you don't like it...don't get on the Internet, or create your own Intranet. Find another way to make your money or get your entertainment. I doubt you will be missed.
T-rav, if that's the most valuable contribution you can give to this discussion, I doubt you'll be missed either.
Originally posted by cj@May 17 2003, 11:03 AM
Drop by for a visit and I'll organise a dinner with our mentally challenged spammer population.
I'm busy that night... :nyanya:
Torone
05-17-2003, 09:21 AM
Sykk makes a very good point about sueing because the client COULD have gotten whatever for free by doing this or that...I think I'll sue my Ford place. I could have fixed my brakes for free, if I had made time and had the machines and tools.
A guy drives his car into the garage and tells the mechanic, "It's runnibg rough.".
Mechanic opens the hood, looks at the engine, and taps the carguretor with a hammer. The engine settles down and runs smoothly. "That'll be $25.00.".
Customer: "$25.00! All you did was tap it a couple of times with a hammer!".
Mechanic: "Let me get you an itemized bill."
The bill reads:
2 taps with hammer-$1.00
Knowing where to tap-$24.00
:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
Spam is a bit inconvenient; but I can put up with most of it, What really pisses me off is when some spammer 'spoofs' my enail addy as the sender.
As for police...here in Houston, if you want to talk to a cop, you need to drop by Rick's. :D
RawAlex
05-17-2003, 10:49 AM
Sykky, they didn't have all the info in that article:
"One Web-based scam claimed that consumers who paid a one-time fee of $49.95 were guaranteed to receive a "100% unsecured" VISA or MasterCard credit card with a credit limit up to $5,000.00. Consumers who clicked on the "Claim your card NOW," icon on the Web site and entered their checking account information received a confirmation page or e-mail that typically stated, "Approved! Congratulations! Your membership has been approved." In fact, according to the FTC, what consumers received was access to a Web page containing hyperlinks to various companies that purportedly issue credit cards -- a list of hyperlinks that would have been available free to consumers who used a search engine. "
The flaw is promising a 100% unsecured credit card... they couldn't do that with just a list of links...
Read the rest of it here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/05/swnetforce.htm
Alex
SykkBoy
05-17-2003, 02:44 PM
Ah, ok
makes mroe sense now ;)
I should sue those guys for making me go off on a tangent...fuckers made me burn braincells and everyone knows how much I hate that...
although...I now have an idea...just have to tweak the marketing a bit ;))))
RawAlex
05-17-2003, 03:52 PM
I am sure there is a market for being a clearing house for information in this manner... and I am sure people would pay for that service.
I hope the FTC decides to nail a few more of these morons...
Alex
SykkBoy
05-17-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@May 17 2003, 03:00 PM
I am sure there is a market for being a clearing house for information in this manner... and I am sure people would pay for that service.
I hope the FTC decides to nail a few more of these morons...
Alex
I'm sure there is :)
me too, especially if I create a similar service but without false promises ;)))
Hooper
05-18-2003, 11:04 AM
Sykk... you might be suprised at who exactly that was that was busted.
You probably know them... i'll give you one hint.. it's not me :rolleyes:
SykkBoy
05-18-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Hooper@May 18 2003, 10:12 AM
Sykk... you might be suprised at who exactly that was that was busted.
You probably know them... i'll give you one hint.. it's not me :rolleyes:
Hmmmm, I can only think of a couple other Texans...
;))))
RawAlex
05-19-2003, 12:12 PM
I got this today:
Welcome to our Bargains Depot newsletter! We just received a request to add EMAILADDRESS@REMOVED.COM to our mailing list.
Each day we hunt up a great offer from an online merchant, from leading retailers to unique niche shops, and deliver it to your inbox. Don't miss an exciting issue.
Each Bargains Depot newsletter includes easy to use unsubscribe instructions. If you no longer want our newsletter, it's a breeze to let us know.
Sincerely,
The Bargains Depot Team
Gee thanks... opted in without permission, I have to do something to opt out, and I don't even know if the company is actually going to respect the opt out or just use it to confirm me for 1000 other lists.
Dumbasses.
Alex
T-Rav
05-19-2003, 02:26 PM
cj, cj, cj...again with the personal attacks. It is interesting, considering how much I like and respect you, that we disagree as often as we do. It is also interesting how quickly you resort to personal attacks when I voice an opinion that differs from yours. Who pissed in your cheerios?
when you've been on the net a little longer & your name is on every remove list around you might understand ... the fact that you get so little spam that you can tell that someone added your address to a few spam lists is pretty funny ... you must have had a lot before if you noticed that.
I do not spend all day deleting spam. I change email addy's frequently, I have "spam" email accounts that i use to sign up for things online, because I know they will submit those addy's to spam lists. I check those addy's about once a week, and since the only reason I have those addy's is to field spam I can delete everything at once.
What do you mean spam arguments are based on propaganda & bullshit?! What's propaganda about the points I have made so far? They are my points, not the governments points ... or did you just jump in and let your fingers vomit on the keyboard?
I often times vomit on the keyboard...its my secret way of protecting myself from the evils of spam. However, I said that MOST of the anti-spam arguments were based on propaganda and bullshit. Not YOUR arguments.
After I learned how to read, I went back and read all of your posts. Let me boil it down a little. You believe spam is out of control and it is a big waste of your time and your money. You are also concerned about people that aren't as technically savvy, and would like to see something in place to protect them from spam.
Let me boil down my position. It is not a big waste of my time and money. I also believe in personal responsibility, so I'm not too terribly concerned about how other people use their email, filters, etc.
wtf?!?! the Internet is free? um .... i actually pay for my internet access, i pay for my computer and i pay for the server that directs my mail to me. what internet are you using?
The type of free I was referring to is this one: freedom, liberty...not free as in it doesn't cost anything. I believe the Internet is currently relatively "free" from extensive legislation and control from government entities. I think that is a good thing. I think it is this way because the Internet is a relatively new way of communicating. I think it is very important to keep it "free" from legislation as long as possible. That is the main reason I don't mind spam. I would rather deal with spam than have a government agency try to control it. And to answer your question...I use the same Internet you do. :nyanya:
T-rav, if that's the most valuable contribution you can give to this discussion, I doubt you'll be missed either.
You know you'd miss me cj :inlove:
It is not my style to make valuable contributions. I like to make broad reaching ridiculous statements based very little on fact or research. Debating is often times an excercise in futility, and I hate going to the gym ;)
sharky
05-19-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@May 19 2003, 11:20 AM
I got this today:
Welcome to our Bargains Depot newsletter! We just received a request to add EMAILADDRESS@REMOVED.COM to our mailing list.
Each day we hunt up a great offer from an online merchant, from leading retailers to unique niche shops, and deliver it to your inbox. Don't miss an exciting issue.
Each Bargains Depot newsletter includes easy to use unsubscribe instructions. If you no longer want our newsletter, it's a breeze to let us know.
Sincerely,
The Bargains Depot Team
Gee thanks... opted in without permission, I have to do something to opt out, and I don't even know if the company is actually going to respect the opt out or just use it to confirm me for 1000 other lists.
Dumbasses.
Alex
I got the same damn thing. about 20 of em.
it's guys like that that give mailers a bad name
Originally posted by T-Rav@May 19 2003, 01:34 PM
cj, cj, cj...again with the personal attacks. It is interesting, considering how much I like and respect you, that we disagree as often as we do. It is also interesting how quickly you resort to personal attacks when I voice an opinion that differs from yours. Who pissed in your cheerios?
T-rav, i've learnt over my time on the boards that people only take posts as personal attacks when the poster says something true ...
If you chose to take that personally that's your problem, not mine ...
Your posts are always inflammatory, but then you act like a cry baby when someone questions your comments. You rarely post anything that is based on the discussion because you post first, read later, making your posts have little relevance to the points having been addressed so far. Its a posting style of lazy people, who are only posting to get their advertising on the board as much as possible. We don't 'always disagree', i just like watching you defend the broad sweeping statements you make ...
Believe me, I could get a lot more personal ... but you are a 'too easy' target.
Let me boil down my position. It is not a big waste of my time and money. I also believe in personal responsibility, so I'm not too terribly concerned about how other people use their email, filters, etc.
simple question t-rav, how many spam emails do you get per day? 30 or 40? How many business emails do you get per day? a handful? Like I said before, if you can actually notice when someone adds you to a spam list, then you obviously don't have an email problem ... it sounds like you go to an awful lot of trouble maintaining multiple accounts, good for you ... would you like a medal or a chest to pin it on?
I hope the problems get sorted out before you have to experience a large volume of email ... my opinion was closer to yours once, just delete it and stop bitchin, but after watching spam double and triple this year, i'm sick of it and sick of how much of my time it takes up to ensure i'm not losing valuable business email in amongst the spam. I do use many systems for reducing it, my filters catch around 300 messages a day, i sign up with specific emails to sites i know will spam me, but around 100 - 300 per day still get through - this amount grows every day until I set up a new batch of filters. the cycle continues week after week.
It is not my style to make valuable contributions. I like to make broad reaching ridiculous statements based very little on fact or research. Debating is often times an excercise in futility, and I hate going to the gym ;)
you said it!
T-Rav
05-20-2003, 12:02 PM
T-rav, i've learnt over my time on the boards that people only take posts as personal attacks when the poster says something true ...
If you chose to take that personally that's your problem, not mine ...
I never said I took anything personally. I just pointed out the personal attacks, which they were. I'm not sure if you noticed the tone of my post, but it was intended to make light of the situation and express the ability to laugh at myself. I've always said, if you can laugh at yourself you are guaranteed a lifetime of joy. It seems like you take yourself very seriously.
Your posts are always inflammatory, but then you act like a cry baby when someone questions your comments. You rarely post anything that is based on the discussion because you post first, read later, making your posts have little relevance to the points having been addressed so far. Its a posting style of lazy people, who are only posting to get their advertising on the board as much as possible.
Talk about a broad reaching statement. My posts are "always" inflammatory? I don't remember acting like a "crybaby". I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many, if any inflammatory posts by me. I do read every post prior to making my post. If you feel my posts have no relevance to the discussion at hand that is your opinion.
My post was relevant to the discussion. I voiced my opinion and brought up new points regarding the "freedom" of the Internet, and how I believe it is important to keep it as free (and by free, I mean, freedom and liberty) as possible. That was my stance, regardless of how many spams you get or I get...is in my opinion, not the issue. Your "points" on the other hand were the same old shit we see time and time again. I pay for my Internet, I pay for my servers, I get too much spam, it wastes my valuable time. If you would like me to address those every time you say it, that would be a waste of my time.
My opinions are often very gray and meant to make people think about the other side of the coin. I am not trying to win a debate. Sometimes pointing out the extremes is a good way of making a point.
I hope the problems get sorted out before you have to experience a large volume of email ... my opinion was closer to yours once, just delete it and stop bitchin, but after watching spam double and triple this year, i'm sick of it and sick of how much of my time it takes up to ensure i'm not losing valuable business email in amongst the spam.
I can appreciate this point of view, and maybe my opinion will change in the future.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.