From: eristic@gryzmak.lodz.pdi.net (Marek Jedlinski)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:41:34 +0800
To: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov)
Subject: Re: Dealing with Spam, Part 1
In-Reply-To: <199802190557.XAA00934@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <34ee0fca.11042019@gryzmak.lodz.pdi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

>To add to this, the spam blocking technology is widely available and can be
>used by anyone with half brain. 

So? I use filtering, too (procmail) with relatively good results as far as
it goes, but *so what*? Filtering is the last-stance defense. I should not
have to filter out spam.

I addressed the various weak sides of filters at length previously, so I
won't repeat that. Digest: filtering is heuristic, error prone, consumes
the maintainer's time and consumes machine resources (think of all the perl
scripts people are beefing up their procmail filters with). I have to
connect to my ISP to modify/upload filters - this itself costs me time and
money too.


Here's why I say I should not *have to* filter:

We pay for advertising when we purchase the advertised products. Sometimes,
as in the case of software, the price increase due to advertising costs is
very high. This is a disgrace, BUT it is not theft.

We do NOT pay for advertising if we do not choose to purchase the product.
If you don't but Coke, you don't pay for Coke's advertising. If you don't
use buses, you do not chip into the transport company's coffer, either.
This is generally regarded as "fair".

With spam, it's different. I am forced to pay for spammers' ad campaigns
(pay, that is, in the costs of greater phone bills and expended time) even
though I have never and will never purchase anything advertised by spam.
Can you see the difference? *This* is why spam is THEFT. Normally,
advertisers get your money only when you buy the product, so you do get
something in return. Spammers take money from you whether or not you want
their products - and hey, they take money from you even if you explicitly
tell them to stop (unworkable fake "remove" lists sold to other spammers,
filter bocks bypassed by forged headers, etc).


>My spam filters make me spend no more than 
>a minute or so a day on quickly reviewing and deleting spams.

A minute. Will it still be a minute when you get a thousand spams per day?
Ten thousand? And why not, seeing how many *million* businesses there are
that might one day decide to spam. It costs them next to nothing.

>I do it by saving all messages that are likely to be spam to a separate
>folder. A quick browse through subject lines of these messages is enough
>to delete them really quickly.

So you're just playing into the hands of the spammers, who tell you to
"just hit delete". You are thus helping them, by allowing them to continue
unchallenged. It's your choice, of course, but IMO it's nothing to be proud
of.

>In the future such spam detection is going to become a lot harder. 

It already is. But you are right, it *is* going to get harder still,
because spammers are constantly getting better at bypassing filter blocks.
This invalidates the notion that filtering is somehow an "adequate"
solution.

>Perhaps
>a system where the first time sender pays a refundable digital fee to
>the reader will become necessary.

In vaguely distant future, perhaps. Currently this kind of scheme is
plainly *impossible* to implement, because (a) e-cash is still not cheap
enough (i.e. it doesn't make financial sense to transfer sub-dollar
amounts); (b) because there's no widely accepted standard for e-cash
transfers; (c) whether e-cash or not, you could only implement such a
pay-per-message scheme within the US, perhaps, and within several
West-European countries. In other places, the banking systems in place are
too behind-the-curve to allow this to work. Me - for instance - I have no
cheap *and* fast way of transferring foreign currency abroad (no, not even
with a regular VISA that I have). I'll skip the irrelevant details, but I
can explain it at length to anyone interested - but basically most banks in
Poland want you to have a separate dollar account for such transfers, with
a sum like $10.000 *frozen* in the account to use VISA internationally.
That's far more than I can afford, and I'm in the mid-range earnings
bracket. (Yes, this also means I can't order from online stores such as
amazon.com et al.)


.marek

-- 
Invalid thought. Close all mental processes and restart body.
Largactil Caf http://www.lodz.pdi.net/~eristic/index.html
Send message with GET PGP_KEY in subject for PGP public key.
Hail Eris. *plonk* trolls. Fight spam: http://www.cauce.org/