• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Topic: 9 years for a spammer...

  1. #1

    9 years for a spammer...

    sponsored links


    I don’t want to reopen the thread about P2P that occurs recently in the Sample section, but this decision seems to me so symptomatic :

    When providers lose there own money with spamming, then, suddenly, they don’t see any problem to control this (no technical limit or private life considerations, this time... so strange...) and to ask the authorities to apply the law.

    Neither users, I presum, as this time spamming doesn’t suit to them too...

    This is so cynical...

    So cynical...

  2. #2

    Re: 9 years for a spammer...

    Yikes! 9 years seems a bit harsh just for sending unsolicited e-mails. And guess what? We'll probably see no noticable decline in spam volume as a result of this. They've gone too far. There are potential solutions to this problem without ruining anyone's life by tossing them in the slammer for 9 years. I agree, this is utterly cynical.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Winsted, CT

    Re: 9 years for a spammer...

    I was personally overjoyed to see that headline a couple of weeks ago.

    Those of us who work in IT spend huge protions of out time dealing with this stuff.

  4. #4

    Re: 9 years for a spammer...

    I work in IT and I know what you mean. But I think there are alternatives to criminalization. I guess I'm just not much for the idea of making criminals out of more and more people who previously were law-abiding citizens.

    What's more, this can and will create a "chilling effect" on legitimate business e-mailing. Supposedly, it's okay to e-mail your customers if you've had business with them, but you'll always have customers who've either forgotten, or who are just touchy and will sue you at the drop of a hat. Then it's difficult to prove that they opted in. The best you could do to prove it would be to show a database with a checkmark in the "send me e-mail" field. And that could be fabricated so easily it's not worth mention. So in essence, there's no way to prove that your e-mails to the customer are legitimate if they want to make a stink about it. And what of the court costs in the meantime?

  5. #5

    Re: 9 years for a spammer...

    Brady, you've mentioned alternatives twice now. Please share some.

    I'm in agreement that non-criminal solutions are best, but so far my technical solutions have been pitiful - even with three levels of anti-spam techniques in action, I still get hundreds per day.


  6. #6

    Spam and fraud, not just spam

    The headline is a little misleading, because it doesn't mention that he was selling "sham products." There's a big difference between spamming fraud and only spamming.

  7. #7

    Re: 9 years for a spammer...

    Yes, sham products... now that's fraud and deserves to be criminally punished.

    As for solutions, I had an idea that I've discussed with some of my colleagues (I'm a programmer by trade) and I believe that has been thought of elsewhere. The idea is that essentially, you'd have a private certification group that would run a "white list" of approved non-spammer addresses and entities and would license their certificate to service providers based on strict spam policy criteria. Service providers would sign on to and license with this certification group. Their membership would be contingent upon strict enforcement of anti-spam policies. If any spam initiators were found, they would have to be expunged, or else the provder hosting them would have their certification revoked and all their IPs blocked from the "white list".

    The certification would be a big selling point for providers, and customers would look for membership in the certification group.

    The only hang up on this idea is that there needs to be a more reliable method of identity verification so that violators couldn't be banned and then simply re-sign up under another name. But I think we're getting close to that being a reality.

  8. #8

    Re: 9 years for a spammer...

    Isn't that a government?

  9. #9

    Re: 9 years for a spammer...

    What, the private certification group? Not at all. It's voluntary. You, as a service provider, would agree to uphold certain policies with regard to your clients e-mailing practices, and in exchange, they agree to grant you a certificate that proves this, and you get put on their "white list".

    You're free to communicate on the internet as usual, but if you want to be on the "inside" with the "white list", then you have to behave. If you don't, then you're taken off the list, and if you're off the list, then those who are only listening to the "white listed" addresses won't communicate with you. This way, people could have a "safe" e-mail account they keep on the "inside" and a catch-all address on the "outside" just in case they need to communicate with someone not on the "white list". But most people would quickly join the "white list" and it would be rare that you'd need to have dealings outside of it, since only spammers would have a reason to be on the outside.

    You could call it a government of sorts, I suppose, but it doesn't involve force at all.

  10. #10

    Re: 9 years for a spammer...

    I like the idea Brady, but is the new and improved identification system going to identify hackers? They have many means of bypassing the current identification process don't they?
    Michael Peter

    If music be the food of love...
    play on

    William Shakespeare


Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts