CDR: RE: FW: BLOCK: AT&T signs bulk hosting contract with spammers
James Wilson writes:
Does shifting the cost of millions of dollars every month on to other businesses, individuals and governments qualify as "significant (heck, even measurable) harm"? Yes.
Spam is VERY EXPENSIVE -- this document explains why... http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW19980504S0003
Spam has also been defined, *in multiple court cases*, as "trespassing upon a chattel", as denial of service attacks (from the flood of bounces from the fake return addresses crippling third party servers, )fraud and damaging business reputations (when spammers use fake addresses to blame innocent 3rd party businesses), and as theft of service. Do you consider trespassing, denial of service attacks, fraud, damaging reputations, and stealing services ethical behavior?
I have no doubt that spam *does* cost millions of dollars every month to handle. However, describing it as "trespassing", "stealing" and so forth is simply an attempt to demonize it with emotionally loaded terms. It's amazing to me that anyone can get away with accusing someone else of "stealing" a resource the accuser is giving away for free. Consider ordinary snail-type junk mail: many think it's annoying, wish they didn't have to deal with it, and often try to block its transmission. Nobody calls it stealing or trespassing, however, because the junk mailer has to pay to send it (in the same way that anyone else has to pay to send a piece of mail). Hence, the obvious solution is to make it *cost money to send mail* (or to use any other network resource). Combine that with automated reputation handling -- charge a small fee to accept mail from "unknown" parties -- and this both reduces spam and shifts the cost of resource usage to those using the resources. Of course, this won't completely eliminate spam -- nor arguably *should* it -- but it has the potential to make it less cost-effective that it is now -- where the cost is effectively zero once you've amassed your list of addresses. This would at least make spammers aim at a more tightly-focused target market. - GH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote:
I have no doubt that spam *does* cost millions of dollars every month to handle. However, describing it as "trespassing", "stealing" and so forth is simply an attempt to demonize it with emotionally loaded terms. It's amazing to me that anyone can get away with accusing someone else of "stealing" a resource the accuser is giving away for free.
There's a problem with this view...
Hence, the obvious solution is to make it *cost money to send mail* (or to use any other network resource).
It already does (TANSTAAFL), what you seem to be missing is WHO is doing the paying. When the postman drops that mail in my mailbox it costs me nothing. When they drop it in my email box it causts me cycles, and their my cycles not the person sending the spam. When they send their probe out to my mailer to determine it's configuration without permission that is trespassing. It is the same as if they came onto my property to determine how I configure my VCR. That the computer is accessible through a public channel is as irrelevant to the issue as the fact that the street in front of my house that connects with my driveway is public as well. Then again, you may not mind people whom you don't know camping out in your living room and knowing what sorts of video tapes you have and who you watch them with. Access <> Ownership ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com>
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote:
Hence, the obvious solution is to make it *cost money to send mail* (or to use any other network resource).
It already does (TANSTAAFL), what you seem to be missing is WHO is doing the paying. When the postman drops that mail in my mailbox it costs me nothing.
But it does, in fact. It costs you the effort to look at it (and distinguish it from desired mail) and that might mean you have to physically open it up. Then, you have to dispose of it, and that involves not merely tossing it into the trash, but setting it out to be picked up once a week. (Of course, those who burn their own trash may actually see "Uncle Spam" as BTU's (excuse me, calories or joules.)) A few years ago I proposed that email senders should be given the option of including a small amount of digital cash along with that email, as compensation for the inconvenience. Email programs could be programmed to sort the email in order of "tribute" sent: I could very easily ignore an email that gave me 1 penny, but I'd be intrigued by an email that included $1. "Spammers" who actually had an offer that a large fraction of the recipients would be interested in could easily afford $1 per email, or more. Jim Bell
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, jim bell wrote:
But it does, in fact. It costs you the effort to look at it (and
An irrelevant amount. The reality is that the cost of filtering physical spam is trivial. It normaly takes me less than 10 second to get the trash in the trash can. Sine I'm going to spend that effort anyway to get the mail I do want the cost is irrelevant. Where e-spam differs from physical spam is that physical spammers send me one copy whereas e-spam usualy means many copies. The real problem with e-spam isn't the cost to filter it but to get rid of it, there isn't a natural limit on e-spam like physical spam. What needs to happen is that instead of spammers adding you to a list and then you have to take extra action to get off (this is where the cost to me comes in, not analogous to physical mail at all really) they would send the note once and then include instructions on how to join if interested. Unfortunately spammers require a large distribution count in order for the minute percentange of interested responants can be advised of its existance. Spammers have a right to send out spam, they don't have a right to bury the recipient in it. It's harrasment and theft of service (my time and effort). ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 09:10:34AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, jim bell wrote:
But it does, in fact. It costs you the effort to look at it (and
An irrelevant amount. The reality is that the cost of filtering physical spam is trivial. It normaly takes me less than 10 second to get the trash in the trash can. Sine I'm going to spend that effort anyway to get the mail I do want the cost is irrelevant.
Many people under-state the cost of bulk (paper) mail in this way. In fact, the cost is far greater, especially in use of natural resources. As a rabid environmentalist, every time I get a piece of junk mail I think of it in terms of the trees, oil (for plastic) and other resources that went into getting it to me. Lots of this stuff is not recyclable, and not even safe to burn (I've been seeing lots of reports lately about pollution due to "backyard burning"). The post office needs to deliver it. What's the weight of the mass mail delivered daily, and what is the proportion of fuel and other consumables that go into getting it from place to place? I can tell you that even with my greatly sub-typical bulk mail daily influx, it's at least 1/2 of the weight and volume (junk catalogs etc. tend to be bigger and heaver than "legitimate" stuff like bills. As the USPO will tell you, the benefit of junk mail is that it subsidizes regular mail. Personally, I would rather pay several times more for each letter I send and not get any junk mail. Remember the quote in Garfinkel's Database Nation: "there is no junk mail, only junk people." This was from a direct mail marketer, who stated that he had no interest in sending stuff to anyone but potential customers. Well, I've been working for YEARS to tell everyone that I am a junk person, by this definition, but spammers, direct mailers and telemarketers persist in contacting me.
Where e-spam differs from physical spam is that physical spammers send me one copy whereas e-spam usualy means many copies.
I get catalogs every month from many places, even AFTER I have contacted them to ask to be removed from their list. A short list includes Home Depot, Performance Cycles, MicroWarehouse and other companies that should know better. In many cases, the post office refuses to NOT deliver the stuff, because it's addressed to "resident." Unless I want to say that a message is offensive to me and go through the USPO paperwork, there is no way to stop this.
The real problem with e-spam isn't the cost to filter it but to get rid of it, there isn't a natural limit on e-spam like physical spam. What needs to happen is that instead of spammers adding you to a list and then you have to take extra action to get off (this is where the cost to me comes in, not analogous to physical mail at all really) they would send the note once and then include instructions on how to join if interested.
Of course. Why not for paper junk mail, too? I think maybe you haven't actually tried to get off too many paper junk mail lists. It is NOT easy, even when you know exactly who is sending you the stuff.
Spammers have a right to send out spam, they don't have a right to bury the recipient in it. It's harrasment and theft of service (my time and effort).
I only think they have a right in some circumstances, and most spam I receive doesn't meet the criteria. - must have an opt-out & maintain a "do not contact" list - must participate in the DMA's opt-out list or other industry standard resources - must have a valid Reply-to: address to an attended mailbox This is minimal, and is completely consistent with regulations for telemarketers and direct mail services. The fact with phone and mail systems is that they are (a) local or national monopolies; (b) subsidized; and (c) regulated. Regulations are simply a quid pro quo. (Yes, we can argue against this sort of subsidy and regulation...for now, we have it). Taking the same approach to the electronic domain, which often has the same qualities (local monopoly, subsidized and regulated), is an easy decision to make. -- Greg
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Greg Newby wrote:
An irrelevant amount. The reality is that the cost of filtering physical spam is trivial. It normaly takes me less than 10 second to get the trash in the trash can. Sine I'm going to spend that effort anyway to get the mail I do want the cost is irrelevant.
Many people under-state the cost of bulk (paper) mail in this way. In fact, the cost is far greater, especially in use of natural resources.
I may underestimate the cost to the originator but the cost to me for filtering a dozen or so envelopes and paper flyers per day is nil. All your examples are costs to the originator and not to me. I pay for the pickup of my trash which contains the physical spam. Trivial percentage. The cost of cutting the tree down, delivery, etc. as detailed in your examples are costs that are incurred by the sender through the fees they pay to bring the product together and distribute it. I'm all for making that expensive. However, charging for email means everyone pays. Making it so that spammers may only send you one piece of email makes the cost of doing business theirs and doesn't involve me the recipient. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
my cycles not the person sending the spam. When they send their probe out to my mailer to determine it's configuration without permission that is trespassing. It is the same as if they came onto my property to determine how I configure my VCR. That the computer is accessible through a public channel is as irrelevant to the issue as the fact that the street in front of my house that connects with my driveway is public as well.
but on the other hand, we *do* want to keep cracking legal (at least to some extend) because otherwise what is left of security in cyberspace will quickly vanish into oblivion, right? as a matter of fact, *probing* my machine is nothing I'm worried about. if you like, you can come over and probe all you want. if you find something that should worry me, it would be nice of you to tell me first. but if you dump half a million mails on my server, *that* is not acceptable.
Gil Hamilton wrote:
Hence, the obvious solution is to make it *cost money to send mail* (or to use any other network resource). Combine that with automated reputation handling -- charge a small fee to accept mail from "unknown" parties -- and this both reduces spam and shifts the cost of resource usage to those using the resources. Of course, this won't completely eliminate spam -- nor arguably *should* it -- but it has the potential to make it less cost-effective that it is now -- where the cost is effectively zero once you've amassed your list of addresses. This would at least make spammers aim at a more tightly-focused target market.
nice idea - micropayment and all. (i.e. a mail would cost $0.0001 so that ordinary people don't exactly pay anything). however - here's a bummer: you've got a chance of pretty much 0.00% to move into that direction, because a different system is already in place. since it works reasonably well, it'll not get replaced, not even by a vastly superior one. that's just how things work. unfortunately.
participants (7)
-
David Honig -
Gil Hamilton -
Greg Newby -
jim bell -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Tom Vogt