spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: OT: spammers

2004-05-27 14:11:17
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 09:19:10AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 02:02:23PM +0200, Alex van den Bogaerdt 
(alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net) wrote:
Why don't they just send their spam to mailboxes that _do_ allow it; in
stead of going through several hoops to _also_ deliver it to me?

Probably because the vast majority of mailboxes on the net are not
controlled by geeks like us who like to deal with this sort of stuff.

That would be an argument to NOT circumvent filters.  It isn't worth the
effort _and_ it pisses off people that deal with this sort of stuff.

We, as the anti-spam leaders, must remember that we are not the targets
of the spam.  It's not Alex van den Bogaerdt who is the target, but the
N,000,000 folks at AOL, and the X,000,000 at Compuserve, and the 100,000
at bigco.com.

Sure.  When sending out 25,000,000 messages, two possible scenarios:

(let's not discuss the numbers, unless REALLY relevant please)

a) 5,000,000 are delivers to people without spam protection.  Out of
   that number of recipients, 100 bite.
b) 10,000,000 are delivered to people with or without protection. Many
   people are upset and invent even better filters.  Spammers are cut
   of their internet access because of the many complaints, etc, etc,
   Maybe 110 customers.

Another reply talked about software written for spammers.  Those seem
to be the smart people.  So, what we need is a smarter type of spammer,
intelligent enough to NOT buy the software that circumvents filters.

I'm beginning to think that can-spam act isn't so bad after all, if
only every spammer would comply.

Alex
-- 
I ask you to respect any "Reply-To" and "Mail-Follow-Up" headers.  If
you reply to me off-list, you'd better tell me you're doing so.  If
you don't, and if I reply to the list, that's your problem, not mine.