Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
snow wrote:
At 10:49 PM -0800 3/25/97, snow wrote:
What would I do if I were a spammer? Submit the _same_ coin to every mailing I sent out. It will pass your coin filter, and so you see the message, but will fail when you try to spend it, or clear it. What do I care, you've already seen the messag
I should always try to clear your coin and if I like your message send yo a new coin. If I can't clear your coin, then your message goes to /dev/null.
This assumes a system where coins can be cleared in real time, and that people read thier mail while online. At least the second is not an assumption that can be bourn out.
I hope those public key operations are cheap. :-)
Or at least less than 10 cents.
I believe that the 'money-point' for UCE (unsolicited commercial email) spammers is somewhere around .02% for most of their offerings. In other words, they need to send out 10,000 emails and get a response just to break even.
So, to make it unprofitable for them to spam god and everybody, it would only take a small surcharge. i.e. a penny or less. I don't actually object to the average Jane/Joe trying to use the 'new medium' to turn a buck, since I don't think that they should be denied the same opportunity as the mega-buck corporations. However, I would like to see the cost of operations for these types of activities be substantial enough that they will be forced to adopt a method of operations that will ensure that there is least a chance that I will be interested in what they have to offer.
As things stand, I could buy some UCE/spamming software and send out my proverbial "How To Make $$$ Licking Your Own Dick" missives and probably make some money, since it would not cost me much to send my messages to a few million people.
They don't know at the time of the mailing whether they'll make any money off of it... Most of them seem like very stupid scams and probably don't make any money. But they have enough of a hope to profit from the mailing.
If it was actually costing me even a small sum to send each message, then I would no longer be able to afford indiscriminate spamming, but would still have the option to use hardwork and intelligence to narrow the field of recipients to only include those who might be interested in my offer, such as Bill Frantz, Jim Bell, and Bill Stewart.
I truly believe that the InterNet should be left accessible to those without a lot of resources/cash, and that any effort to control abuse through cost should be so minimal as to not interfere with the ability of those who are currency-challenged to participate in its benefits.
That's a very good point, Toto. As you may recall, my domain, dm.com, stands for D&M Consulting. There's another internet domain, dm1.com, which stands for 'direct marketing'. They've been sending out a lot of UCE. A number of net.cops have been complaining to us and to PSI, our upstream connection, because they lack the mental capacity to distinguish between 'dm' and 'dm1'. PSI used to be a good provider when we started doing business with them 6 years ago; now they have new people who are totally clueless and obnoxious. It goes like "We've been receiving a lot of complaints about the traffic originating at your site". "These are false complaints." "Well, we've still been receiving a lot of complaints." And "If you can prove that this traffic did not originate with you, then we won't hold you responsible." [I'm cc'ing this to the Rev. Steve Winter who's had similar problems with the new management at PSI. What a bunch of assholes! ] But, Toto, sending UCE is not without a cost. If you had what most people have these days - a $19.95/month SLIP or PPP account, and you sent out a few thousand commercial solicitations to random people, your account would be closed within hours by most providers. It would then take your a little time and effort to open another account. The nan-am folks have been trying to come up with a blacklist of "spammers" who go from one provider to another - I don't know how successful they've been. A lot of people try the internet in general, or a particular provider, judge them to be full of shit, and close down the account. Perhaps a few would rather go with a bang. Clearly, most folks who send out unsolicited e-mail are not masochists seeking to have their plugs pulled. Most of them hope to sell something. (Most of them are scammers, but that's besides the point.) I also saw at least one religious mass e-mail (God loves you etc), where monetary profit was probably not the motive for sending it. I think it's safe to assume that most folks who send out unsolicited mass e-mail don't want the recipient to be annoyed and to complain to the sender's ISP [This may not be true about the users of anonymous remailers! ]. A while back we discussed on the cp mailing list a spec for a system that provide junk e-mailers for free with a list of (hashed) addresses that should be removed from any mass e-mail lists. Is anyone interested in talking about the technical aspects of such a system? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps