<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What is spam and where does it come from?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/11/crikey-clarifier-what-is-spam-and-where-does-it-come-from/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/11/crikey-clarifier-what-is-spam-and-where-does-it-come-from/</link>
	<description>now with extra source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:13:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stilgherrian</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/11/crikey-clarifier-what-is-spam-and-where-does-it-come-from/#comment-28466</link>
		<dc:creator>Stilgherrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/11/crikey-clarifier-what-is-spam-and-where-does-it-come-from/#comment-28466</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;@Gavin Moodie:&lt;/strong&gt; The &quot;charge for email&quot; approach is one of a number of naïve suggestions for solving the spam problem which keeps getting floated. Short answer: it wouldn&#039;t work, for many reasons. The most important:

1. The internet has no central trusted authority to whom the money would be paid.

2. People have been sending email for &quot;free&quot; for 40 years. (Or at least email is seen as just one kind of data transfer for which they already pay.) A new charge specifically for one kind of data transfer would never get up.

3. People already fail to keep their computers free of infection, even though they can already be penalised by paying for the data spam uses, or be cut off by their ISP. This is just another way of punishing the innocent after the spam has already been sent.

4. Spammers already use stolen credit card numbers to fund other aspects of their operations -- they&#039;re criminals, remember! -- so they&#039;d have no qualms about using them to pay this new charge too.

In fact, so many people have suggested this and other unworkable ideas before that there&#039;s actually a parody (US-centric) form letter response...

&lt;blockquote&gt;Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won&#039;t work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenceless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we&#039;ll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don&#039;t care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else&#039;s career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don&#039;t want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don&#039;t think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you&#039;re a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I&#039;m going to find out where you live and burn your house down!&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Some people have too much time on their hands.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>@Gavin Moodie:</strong> The &#8220;charge for email&#8221; approach is one of a number of naïve suggestions for solving the spam problem which keeps getting floated. Short answer: it wouldn&#8217;t work, for many reasons. The most important:</p>
<p>1. The internet has no central trusted authority to whom the money would be paid.</p>
<p>2. People have been sending email for &#8220;free&#8221; for 40 years. (Or at least email is seen as just one kind of data transfer for which they already pay.) A new charge specifically for one kind of data transfer would never get up.</p>
<p>3. People already fail to keep their computers free of infection, even though they can already be penalised by paying for the data spam uses, or be cut off by their ISP. This is just another way of punishing the innocent after the spam has already been sent.</p>
<p>4. Spammers already use stolen credit card numbers to fund other aspects of their operations&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;they&#8217;re criminals, remember!&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;so they&#8217;d have no qualms about using them to pay this new charge too.</p>
<p>In fact, so many people have suggested this and other unworkable ideas before that there&#8217;s actually a parody (US-centric) form letter response&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>Your post advocates a</p>
<p>( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante</p>
<p>approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won&#8217;t work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)</p>
<p>( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br />
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br />
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br />
( ) It is defenceless against brute force attacks<br />
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we&#8217;ll be stuck with it<br />
(X) Users of email will not put up with it<br />
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it<br />
( ) The police will not put up with it<br />
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br />
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br />
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br />
( ) Spammers don&#8217;t care about invalid addresses in their lists<br />
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else&#8217;s career or business</p>
<p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for</p>
<p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br />
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br />
( ) Open relays in foreign countries<br />
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br />
( ) Asshats<br />
( ) Jurisdictional problems<br />
(X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br />
(X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br />
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br />
(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br />
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br />
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br />
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br />
( ) Extreme profitability of spam<br />
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br />
( ) Technically illiterate politicians<br />
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br />
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br />
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br />
( ) Outlook</p>
<p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:</p>
<p>(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever<br />
been shown practical<br />
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br />
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation<br />
( ) Blacklists suck<br />
( ) Whitelists suck<br />
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored<br />
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br />
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br />
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br />
(X) Sending email should be free<br />
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br />
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses<br />
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br />
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br />
( ) I don&#8217;t want the government reading my email<br />
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p>
<p>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:</p>
<p>(X) Sorry dude, but I don&#8217;t think it would work.<br />
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you&#8217;re a stupid person for suggesting it.<br />
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I&#8217;m going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</p></blockquote>
<p>Some people have too much time on their hands.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gavin Moodie</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/11/crikey-clarifier-what-is-spam-and-where-does-it-come-from/#comment-28462</link>
		<dc:creator>Gavin Moodie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/11/crikey-clarifier-what-is-spam-and-where-does-it-come-from/#comment-28462</guid>
		<description>What happened to the proposal, yonks ago, to charge everyone 0.1 cent for every email they send?  Wouldn’t that close down spam in a year by encouraging emailers to delete Trojan horses hiding on their computers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What happened to the proposal, yonks ago, to charge everyone 0.1 cent for every email they send?  Wouldn’t that close down spam in a year by encouraging emailers to delete Trojan horses hiding on their computers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 465/474 objects using apc

Served from: www.crikey.com.au @ 2012-02-12 21:22:09 -->
