[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Spam blacklist project
[email protected] writes:
> The following idea just hit me. How about a server which
> maintained a list of people who don't want to recive SPAM? The idea
> being that email recpients who don't want SPAM send their email
> address to the list. A SPAMer who want to check an email to see
> if it is on the list could then obtain the SHA-Digested list of
> addresses and remove them from their internal databases.
>
> Of course I don't for a moment imagine that this will
> be 100% effective. Without government regulation there will
> always be slimeballs who send mail to people who don't want it.
>
> The advantage of this scheme is that it would mean that
> the spam industry can avoid regulation pressure and they can
> deflect criticism. Meanwhile recipients of unwanted spam have
> a legitimate beef.
I proposed this very idea on Usenet a few weeks ago. Apparently the
folks who send out spam e-mail (DEMMA) like it very much. (They're not
masochists -- they don't want to mail people who'll mailbomb them right
back or complain to their postmasters or otherwise make their lives
miserable :-) Such a list should be maintained by a neutral third party,
not by one of the junk-mailers for two reasons: they can't really be
trusted, and their plugs get pulled all the time.
Note that I also proposed making freely available lists of people who
said they _do want to receive junk mail on various topics - to make
*selling* such lists meaningless.
I'll repost some excerpts from the Usenet thread to give you some idea
of what's been discussed already, and what kind of discussion it was.
1.
From: [email protected] (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
A user asks a 'bot for a random cookie. The user e-mails the 'bot
the cookie (for authentication) and his preference for unsolicited commercial
junk e-mail: wants it, doesn't want it, or doesn't care
The 'bot maintains an FTP site with 2 compressed lists of e-mail addresses:
people who said they want junk e-mail and people who said they don't want
it. (No list for "don't care's" is needed.)
An advertiser preparing a mass e-mail campaign should take care not to
e-mail the addresses that don't want junk e-mail. (A mailing list scrubbing
tool should be provided.) Bothering people on this list would be a serious
net-abuse
On the other hand, sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to people who told
the 'bot they want it, or who haven't bothered to tell the 'bot
they don't want junk mail, is not net-abuse. Like it or not, if you post to
Usenet, you can expect junk e-mail coming your way. It's your responsibilty
to make it known that you don't want unsolicited commercial e-mail
2.
From: [email protected] (Chris Lewis)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>I remind everyone of Dr. Grubor's brilliant proposal. (I will type slowly,
>so that even the Cabal can understand.)
Grubby's "brilliant proposal" isn't really Grubby's. It's been made by
several spammers over the months. Eg: Slaton. Tyrell's InsideConnections.
The "Direct Email Marketing Association".
3.
From: [email protected] (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
>>but if they agree to abide by his list and not to e-mail
>>the people who indicated their desire not to be e-mail, it's just wonderful!
>
>They won't.
>From what I know of Slaton, I don't expect him and his associates to send
unsolicited commercial e-mail to addresses that indicate to him that such
e-mail is unwelcome
>>I get junk mail; I also see bounced junk mail addressed to nonexistent accounts
>>like "[email protected]" (used for forgeries by your pal Pidor Vorobiev).
>>Sometimes the junk mail tells the recepient to e-mail some address to be
>>removed from a mailing list. I tried it a few times, but the address would
>>always be defunct by then.
>
>Exactly.
You sound proud of the fact that there's no mechanism for me to let Slaton
know that I don't want to receive unsolicited commercial e-mail?
>>It's particularly
>>inexcusable if you're telling the truth and Slaton&co have indeed agreed to
>>abide by the "don't-mail" requests.
>
>I didn't say that they _do_ abide by them.
Of course they can't now
There is no FTP site where a spammer can get (for free) the
list of addresses to which junk e-mail shouldn't be sent. Nor is there a
user-friendly way to add one's address to this "don't e-mail" list - yet
>Even when they've invented the "don't-mail" process themselves, they
>don't abide by them. Slaton just used it as a means to extort money -
>he never intended to actually respect it.
Slaton&co shouldn't be the one maintaining the list of addresses that don't
want junk e-mail. A deamon should do it, and the service should be free.
By the way I don't recall Slaton asking anyone to pay for not being e-mailed.
Unless you provide a quote, I'll assume you made this up.
>>>And you know what? Not a single spammer uses any one of them. Including
>>>Slaton or Tyrell. They just sell the lists to other spammers.
>
>>Please explain how the spammers would _sell each other the list of
>>addresses of people who DON'T want junk e-mail if it were _freely available
>>for FTP. I think you overestimate their talent for salesmanship. :-)
>
>It's called "fraud". They'd do it exactly the same way that Slaton sells
>his "products" and "services" which are known to (a) not work, and (b)
>aren't supported as promised.
You haven't answered my question, Lues. If the list of e-mail addresses of
people who DON'T want junk e-mail is made available for _free for FTP,
together with a tool for spammers to scrub their mailing lists of these
addresses, and an easy way for anyone to add his or her address to this
list for _free, then how would Slaton _sell this list to anyone?