Michael,
Please stop demanding a 'read receipt' with every mail, it's extremely
irritating.
Abhi
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
[mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of Michael L. Dean
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 6:47 AM
To: ECS; john.burgess@fastex.net; 'William X. Walsh'
Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org; 'Pleasant Valley'
Subject: Re: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
There are now successful alternatives to spamming as a marketing tool --
such asthe use of opt-in lists. You end up paying a lot less than with
third class mail, and if your mail is targeted, even gets high levels of
sales.
But I do know there are lots of disgruntled programmers out there signing on
AOL for a free 500 hours, and then doing a major spam. AOL is only
effective in catching them about 5% of the time.
Michael L. Dean
SourceView Corporation
P. O. Box 4713
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.372.8439; fax-925.372.3841 (after 10pm PST)
mdean@sourceview.com
International service provider for:
1. Internet access, email, efax, news feeds, web hosting;
2. Certified and Bonded Domain Name Registration & Management;
3. Marketing, market research, public relations and press management;
4. E-Commerce Website creation, development & management;
5. Software Programming and Development
----- Original Message -----
From: "ECS" <edseward@cmpsource.com>
To: <john.burgess@fastex.net>; "'William X. Walsh'"
<william@userfriendly.com>
Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>; "'Pleasant Valley'" <domain@pvdd.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
> Or the cost a server farm pays when it is subjected to repeated DOS
> attacks because either one of it's clients spammed or more likely, a
> spammer falsified the headers to direct the attack away from themselves.
>
> He's apparently arguing that a spammer only steals a penny or two from
> each of his victims, so it is only a minor amount of theft and is ok.
> It's a weak argument to be against theft if the theft is only a penny or
> two each victim.
>
> Of course what he is overlooking is if the cost of the theft was so
> insignificant, a spammer would not be stealing the bandwidth, but would
> be paying for the use of a opt in mailing list.
>
> Another factor he is ignoring is the cost of the user's time, who forced
> to deal with this trash. I received around 100 spam emails a day from
> the six email addresses I use for my various business interests.
>
> Of course this is my fault. If I did not have these email addresses on
> my web pages for my clients to use or do not use any of these email
> addresses in lists like this, then the spammers would never bother me.
>
> But then they wouldn't bother me if I just turned my computer off and
> didn't use it. But I would rather turn the spammers off.
>
> And I still believe that OpenSRS should remove any RSP caught spamming.
> Not accused of spamming, but actually caught doing it.
>
> You can't allow your company's product to be represented and sold by
> spammers without expecting to be labeled a spammer yourself.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Burgess" <john.burgess@fastex.net>
> To: "'William X. Walsh'" <william@userfriendly.com>; "'ECS'"
> <edseward@cmpsource.com>
> Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>; "'Pleasant Valley'" <domain@pvdd.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 4:33 PM
> Subject: RE: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
>
>
> > Whattttt?????? Are you an ISP? Do you have _any_ idea how much time
> and
> > effort a _single_ spammer costs an ISP?
> >
> > Did you:
> >
> > figure in the time and labor related costs to tracking down the
> spammer,
> > verifying the identity of the spammer so the ISP shuts down the
> correct
> > user? How about the time and labor and software costs for
> implementing
> > filters and anti-spam measures to marginalize the spammers negative
> effects?
> > What about the _REAL_ business costs the ISP faces by being
> blackholed, or
> > cancelled by the backbone carriers? What about the spammers who uses
> an
> > innocent subscribers address as a return address, and then that email
> box is
> > filled with thousands of "unsubscribe me", bounced, and other messages
> as a
> > result of the spammers activities? What about legal costs resulting
> from
> > lawsuits (from the spammer, subscriber and other secondary parties)?
> What
> > about the loss of flexibility and capability to well behaved
> subscribers
> > that results in increased costs to subscribers due to "security
> measures"
> > that must be implemented that prevent off-network relaying by
> potential
> > spammers?
> >
> > Spammers gladly pay a months subscription for a few hours of spam time
> > (before they are caught) on an ISP's network. Spammers cost us
> (ISP's) real
> > $$$, and most of us deal with them harshly, for good reason.
> >
> > JB
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 3:34 PM
> > > To: ECS
> > > Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org; Pleasant Valley
> > > Subject: Re: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
> > >
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29-Apr-2000 ECS wrote:
> > > > There is a big difference in the unsolicited junk mail send
> > > by through
> > > > the post office and that sent through email. We use the
> > > postal service
> > > > ourselves to sent out bulk mailings to potential customers.
> > > >
> > > > The difference is that we pay for every piece we mail. It costs
> us
> > > > almost $1.50 to send a bulk mailing through the post
> > > office, when you
> > > > consider all costs.
> > > >
> > > > Bulk emailers or spammers do not pay any of the costs for their
> > > > solicitations. The end user pays the costs through the
> > > fees they pay
> > > > the ISP, not the spammer.
> > > >
> > > > If the end users of the post office had to pay for the junk
> > > mail they
> > > > receive, then you would see the same type of protest
> > > against it that you
> > > > see against spam.
> > >
> > > This cost shifting argument is the weakest arguement against
> > > spam. I recently
> > > did a very simply analysis (that easily inflated the numbers
> > > by at least 400%
> > > in favor of your position) that showed the costs to an ISP
> > > with 10,000 users
> > > receiving at least 3 times the normal amount of UCE that was
> > > at least double
> > > the average size of the typical UCE. And even with 10,000
> > > users receiving
> > > email at these inflated rates, the cost to the ISP was not
> > > measurable (in other
> > > words, the ISP would not have incurred any additional costs
> > > as a result).
> > >
> > > All other points aside, this argument about cost shifting is
> > > rather weak.
> > >
> > > > And I for one, will not use a company's product that spams
> > > me. I don't
> > > > care how good the product is, I know if the company spams, then
> they
> > > > would not hesitate to use other questionable business
> > > practices if it
> > > > would make them more money. So how could I be so stupid as
> > > to trust them
> > > > and buy their product after they have proved their low
> > > morale standards
> > > > by sending spam?
> > >
> > > It is entirely your right to decide who you will and will not
> > > do business with.
> > > I, for example, will not do business with anyone who sends me
> > > a junk fax. (Come
> > > to think of it I haven't done business with someone sending
> > > UCE, but my
> > > aversion to it is much less) But this is exactly the
> > > appropriate responses to
> > > these two situations. You decide for yourself if you will or
> > > will not do
> > > business with the party in question, based on the criteria you set.
> > >
> > >
> > > - --
> > > William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> > > http://userfriendly.com/
> > > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> > > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
> > >
> > > iD8DBQE5C0c/8zLmV94Pz+IRAu0sAJ9OxDZMvpLoS0/xKbv2Lgxv0CSSmQCcCCmq
> > > YWl4yvIFtWgnmbOguIRCOpY=
> > > =Y4AE
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:32 EDT