Wave of the Future (Spam)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Thu Jun 21 10:22:14 2001

plz see embedded remarks below.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)


> > At 06:25 PM 6/19/01 -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > >I'm not sure why this continues to be the problem that it is. I agree that
SPAM
> > >is terribly annoying, but can't comprehend why it can't be dealt with from
the
> > >INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP protocol rules such that mail only
> > >allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more than one
destinee,
> > >either in the "to" field or the CC field, it simply pitches it in the bit
> > >bucket.
> > >If I ever want to send several people the same email, which I've not yet
done,
> > >after about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.
>
> Any software that would block sending SPAM would also prevent the
> operation of list-servers, SUCH AS THIS ONE. Conversely, when any
> system is implemented, what would prevent a spammer from using a copy of
> majordomo and involuntarily subscribing everyone to his spam mailing list?
>
That might work once. However, I find that most of the SPAM I see has spoofed
IP addresses, either from a server that serves as a shield for spammers or from
the sender. Oddly enough, the big email servers, e.g. Yahoo, MSN, Hotmail, etc,
don't even filter out mail that's spoofed from THEIR domain. Moreover, I find
that I get SPAM from what appears to be a single source, yet it has several
different source addresses, none of which can be verified.
>
> BTW, MOST of the SPAM that I receive does NOT show more than one address
> in the header by the time that it gets here. Perhaps some of the SPAM is
> being done with a script just like the one that Richard would write?
> I think that we can assume that Richard has not been writing scripts for
> them.
>
I'm not assuming that SPAM is a terrible thing. I just think it should be paid
for by the originator in proportion to the ultimate bandwidth consumed by its
transmission, and that it should be traceable to its source. Now, junk
snail-mail isn't easily traceable to its sender, though its originator is
generally discernable. Maybe the anonymous sorts of mail should be charged for,
say, at $1 per k-bit, if someone really needs to have 'em. I just don't want to
pay for the cost of someone else's wastefulness.
>
> While I do not claim to know what is CURRENTLY being done, it would
> certainly be trivial for a program to generate millions of messages, where
> each one enters the mail system as a seperate message.
>
I get junk mail with just my email address on it, too. Much of the SPAM I get,
however, has dozens of addressees, however. I'm not an expert in internet
technology, sadly, so I can't address, with authority, how one might practically
solve the SPAM problem. Many industry leaders don't seem to view it as a
problem. Perhaps it's already in a category that they can charge for, so it's
just another revenue source for them. I process some 100+ emails, not counting
mailing list traffic, every day. Spam is a nuissance, but only because it's
inconvenient to delete it. I suppose, the mail could be filtered such that only
the items for whic the sender is traceable, say, with FINGER, or some other
tool, but I haven't done that ...YET.
> --
> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin_at_xenosoft.com
>
>
Received on Thu Jun 21 2001 - 10:22:14 BST