![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com... Remember that spammers exist because someone is buying. That tells us the best way to kill them off: get people to stop buying from spammers. Unfortunately, since there's practically no scaling cost associated with sending bulk email, you'd have to eliminate EVERY single spam response to get rid of it. When their response rate goes down, they just send more email. The social solution is a key element, to be sure. But there's always some sucker out there willing to respond to spam. Stiff laws against the kind of tactics spammers use are needed, they need to be enforced, and they need to be passed everywhere, or at least enough places that ISPs can block email from places known to harbor spammers while still allowing 99% of the users to receive all of their email from all of their associates. It's not advertising per se that's the problem. It's the fact that the bulk of the advertising is being sent by people who don't care whether you are likely to reply or not, who know that they would get in trouble if they were found out, and who take steps to cover their tracks. Their anonymity prevents them from acting responsibly in the (currently) wide-open Internet. Of course, one day, we'll have an Internet where there's no such thing as unauthenticated transmissions, and at that point, it will be much easier to tackle problems like this. Until that day, I agree with you that people need to stop replying to spam, while I disagree that doing so is the "best way" to fight spam. Even more, we need to be aggressive about not permitting the general behavior of spammers in the first place. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|