Get a Real Job, Tom
Comments: 4
Goddamn it – this sort of thing should be illegal. The more I see what kind of crap people are willing to pull in the name of making a fast buck, the more I come to believe that the only effective spam control will come from a synthesis of intelligent filtering, aggressive legislation, and outright rabid enforcement and prosecution.
One Thomas M Samco (whose e-mail address I’m so tempted to include here but won’t because it’s against my policy) writes:
Good Day,
I represent an acquisition firm that purchases the e-mail subscribers of websites that go defunct.
We have access to several databases full of individuals who are double opt-in subscribers of newsletters and online offers. We sell off these user bases at 05-15cents per subsciber.
If interested, please let me know what category of interest you would like, and i’ll let you know what currently available assets we have.
Thank You
Thomas M Samco
Independent Rep
MSR Inc.
Double opt-in subscribers!? What the hell are these people thinking? They may have opted into some now-defunct service but I’m pretty damned sure they won’t appreciate getting e-mail from me suggesting they pay Antipixel a visit (no matter what the all-caps, probably impenetrable service agreement they signed said might happen to their addresses at some point in the future). Gods in heaven, have mercy.
This kind of crap just sucks.
•••
Posted to General Rants • 2002.09.06 (Fri) • 15:10
Comments
Posted by Seth Russell 2002.09.07, 03:07
Solution should come from intelligent filtering exclusively. In fact, solving the real problem of seeing what you want in your inboxl, is giving the technology of filtering a real boost. the technologic solutions are emerging. If this is a real problem for you, then start trying them out. Please, please let’s not make this another matter for lawyers to get their liturgus fingers on !
Seth, I actually share your concern about lawyers and their litigious excesses. I was probably posting from the hip, still offended by Samco’s kind offer. You’re probably right about the technology being able to shape up to the point where it can prvide the answer, but I’m not yet convinced.
I created manual filters for years in Eudora and Entourage, trying to pick out the most effective phrases and structure the filters for maximum effect. I’ve run Spam Assassin (which is great) and am now running Apple’s Mail app with its built-in adaptive filtering (which is shaping up to be better than Spam Assassin, I think).
A couple of problems with a technology-only approach stem from an infrastructural weakness and the law of unintended consequences. The former can happen because, like copy protection schemes, there is always a way around software (and even hardware) barriers. Filtering criteria need to be public information so that sysadmins can make informed choices about whether to deploy them (for just one example) and this openness makes it a fairly trivial matter for spammers to develop routines that circumvent the current filtering criteria, however they have been arrived at.
The latter problem seems more difficult to overcome. Dan Gillmor mentioned some cases on his site recently where too-aggressive filtering blocked perfectly legitimate use:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillmor/ejournal/3901481.htm
Of course, legislation is equally prone to problems, including the two I’ve just mentioned. It’s because it appears that no single method is up to the task that I believe the solution needs to involve a combination of approaches. Habeas is trying a combined approach using a sender-warranted status flag and trademark and copyright law protection.
http://www.habeas.com
The problem with this approach (and legislation in general, which I think is what you were getting at) is that it’s a very high-overhead means. It requires constant human vigilance, comprehensive reporting, extensive checking, and the preparation and prosecution of cases against infringers. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that Habeas’s founder is a lawyer. ;-)
I’m far from knowledgeable in either the technology or the law, so I may be way off the mark here. You’re undoubtedly right that technology is improving, of course, and this is something we can certainly be grateful for.
Posted by jh 2002.09.07, 18:12
A good article by Paul Graham which is doing the rounds on the use of Bayesian filtering to detect spam:
http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
The math is beyond me, as are some of the technicalities, but it’s generally a worthwhile read.
Posted by Stephen 2002.09.26, 21:48
I;m just small enough a persona to post the Thomas M Samco email address:
tsam7@1-nil.com
I was tempted to reply asking him to remove my email address from all those purchased lists. But I’m not confident he’s for real.
I’ll save everyone the time to do the who-is:
Registrant:
Another.com
PO Box Highgate Studios, Suite 522
53-59 Highgate Rd.
London, LD NW5 1TL
GB
Domain: 1-NIL.COM
Registrar: DomainBank.com
Administrative Contact:
Admin, Domain postmaster@uk.another.com PO Box Highgate Studios, Suite 522 53-79 Highgate Rd London , LN NW5 1TL GB (PHONE)4402078135001 (FAX)4402078135002Technical Contact:
Admin, Domain postmaster@uk.another.com PO Box Highgate Studio, Suite 522 53-79 Highgate Road London , LN NW5 1TL GB (PHONE)4402078135001 (FAX)4402078135002Zone Contact:
Admin, Domain postmaster@uk.another.com PO Box Highgate Studio, Suite 522 53-79 Highgate Road London , LN NW5 1TL GB (PHONE)4402078135001 (FAX)4402078135002Record created on 05-01-2002
Record expires on 05-01-2003 12:14:06 PM
Database last updated 09-26-2002 04:29:24 AM
Domain servers in listed order:
NS2.ANOTHER.COM 212.62.7.30
DUDLEY.ANOTHER.COM 212.62.1.212
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
