Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Complaining hasn't worked. Period.

    Bouncing hasn't worked. Period.

    Now we're trying to remove the economy of spam, by making sure the user never sees the spam. I think hitting the Spammers in the wallet is the only place they're going to take any notice.
    • Now we're trying to remove the economy of spam, by making sure the user never sees the spam. I think hitting the Spammers in the wallet is the only place they're going to take any notice.

      I think Dan is making a different point. We're not significantly increasing the cost for the spammer. The cost to send spam is not directly related to the volume of spam sent. Therefore, savvy users are reducing the effectiveness of current spamming techniques, so the next step in the arms race is to increase the am

      • It's not the cost of sending spam I'm talking about. It's the return cost of spam. What the spammer's client gets out of spamming. If we can reduce that to zero (or as close to zero as possible) then the spammers exist no longer.

        Of course what we really need is a secure email protocol that validates the sender. Unfortunately SMTP is just too pandemic now to get that to happen.
        • by ziggy (25) on 2002.12.18 10:33 (#15509) Journal
          It's not the cost of sending spam I'm talking about. It's the return cost of spam. What the spammer's client gets out of spamming. If we can reduce that to zero (or as close to zero as possible) then the spammers exist no longer.
          Yes, and what I think Dan has noticed is that when a few savvy users use spam-blockers, the return-on-spam cost decreases, but doesn't become zero (or near-zero). Therefore, the next result is to send more spam, since the incremental cost of sending out a few hundred or a few thousand more messages is near zero.

          I think that the idea behind spam blocking is sound, but it's predicated on virtually everyone using spam blockers. However, if anything less than a vast majority of users use spam blockers, then the paradoxical near-term effect is to increase spam.

          • I disagree.

            It takes expensive hardware to send a lot of spam. Diminishing returns means that they're going to either have to spend more on hardware and bandwidth to get out more spam, or they're going to go bust.

            Besides, I'm not sure I want to eliminate spam - I'd be out of a job ;-) Oh the internal conflicts!