Comments on: 1st spam ‘code of practice’ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8348 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:45:22 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8348/comment-page-1#comment-36807 Reader's Write Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:31:11 +0000 #comment-36807 I agree with both of you but wanted to point out that the ISPs just have to provide the filtering option - its up to the user as to whether they use it or not. cheers I agree with both of you but wanted to point out that the ISPs just have to provide the filtering option – its up to the user as to whether they use it or not.

cheers

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8348/comment-page-1#comment-36803 Reader's Write Wed, 29 Mar 2006 03:50:34 +0000 #comment-36803 I agree, the ISP's should not be the focus of anti spam legislation, the spammers should be. That legislation is like punishing a landlord because the lock was not good enough and your apartment got robbed. I agree, the ISP’s should not be the focus of anti spam legislation, the spammers should be. That legislation is like punishing a landlord because the lock was not good enough and your apartment got robbed.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8348/comment-page-1#comment-36779 Reader's Write Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:40:34 +0000 #comment-36779 Why should regular net users be penalized for the stupidity of those who refuse to secure their computers (Let their computers be used to send spam). There are also some list servers where solicited email is sent out in huge quantities. Email filters catch legitimate messages. Filtering reduces the chance of a legitimate message getting through. I receive email from a customer which is constantly branded as spam. I have even lost some business because emails did not make it past the spam filter. Why not give people immunity for attacking the networks of known spammers? Attacking the websites advertised in spam will cause the cost of doing business to be greater than the profit margin. A list of known websites advertised in spam can be distributed to mailservers. When a mailserver gets a message containing the URL of one of these sites, it should at least visit the site (and maybe submit a fake order). There are other options available as well: http://www.plaza1.net/SpammerSlapper http://www.plaza1.net/SpamFryer.jar http://www.plaza1.net/spammerslammer.cgi All of these present different ways to attack spammer where it counts... their bottom line. Why should regular net users be penalized for the stupidity of those who refuse to secure their computers (Let their computers be used to send spam). There are also some list servers where solicited email is sent out in huge quantities.

Email filters catch legitimate messages. Filtering reduces the chance of a legitimate message getting through. I receive email from a customer which is constantly branded as spam. I have even lost some business because emails did not make it past the spam filter.

Why not give people immunity for attacking the networks of known spammers?
Attacking the websites advertised in spam will cause the cost of doing business to be greater than the profit margin. A list of known websites advertised in spam can be distributed to mailservers. When a mailserver gets a message containing the URL of one of these sites, it should at least visit the site (and maybe submit a fake order).
There are other options available as well:

http://www.plaza1.net/SpammerSlapper
http://www.plaza1.net/SpamFryer.jar
http://www.plaza1.net/spammerslammer.cgi

All of these present different ways to attack spammer where it counts… their bottom line.

]]>