RSS
Twitter
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?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
This article includes the following:
"[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
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment