Spam
 

ready......................go!

Oooops... Never mind.:D

Serious effort
 

I don't like it at all, and I do get my fair share of it.

The best definition I've come across is that it's unwanted communication from another--which would include most telemarketers and a pile of paper mail each day.

The definition of spam as unsolicited communications doesn't work. This would rule out contacting an old friend, or even people in the same business who would probably have an interest in a product. I've replied favorably to both of these types of unsolicited contacts, at times, and was glad I was contacted.

To me, it's the indiscriminate emailing of information which is at the heart of spam. Looking over today's trashed email, I see that a Bob Dallas thinks I might be interested in getting a loan for an auto with him, someone wants to sell me some kind of spy software, teen girls are dying to have me look at them doing naughty things, some Nigerian has sent me a special email to let me in on a good investment deal (yeah, right!!), and (here's the enemy) a company wants to sell me three million email addresses. What all these have in common is there's just nothing about my web site where my email address was surely harvested which suggests that I might be interested in any of those products. I'm just on a list with thousands of others, and the sender is hoping for a 2% return which will more than repay costs.

I turn them all in to spamcop.com, and set up filters to handle the most obvious problems, but inevitably, 10-15 turn up in my In Box each day. Just delete, I know, but that's a lot of wasted bandwidth going around the net, not to mention stuff showing up on our home server that I don't want my teenage son to see. :eek:

All of which is real different from what I heard Brodie describing on that other thread. Spam is a major problem, but software which enables you to send a personalized message to clients, family and friends is OK, as far as I'm concerned. One can use such for good, or for spamming. The software is a morally nuetral entity.

Phil

Agreed, as long it's as easy to opt-out (that would mean opt-out code that actually works) as it was to opt-in.

On the other hand, embedded javascript execution (which was also asked for) by a mail client is a sure ticket to assassination by every system/network admin who can. ;)

My real favorite is spammers who spoof being me, which is done by hacking the from and reply-to headers to show whatever they want. Then when the mail bounces because some of the addresses aren't valid, I got the response from the mailer daemon. But the ones that get through see it as having come from my (or your) email addy. We love ethics in advertising.

definition
 

First of all most of the Internet in the US is downstream of WorldCom and by contract bound to enforce an acceptable use policy no more broad than WorldCom's AUP.
This is WorldCom's acceptable Use Policy's "spam" definitions:
System and network security
Violations of system or network security are prohibited, and may result in criminal and civil liability. UUNET will investigate incidents involving such violations and may involve and will cooperate with law enforcement if a criminal violation is suspected. Examples of system or network security violations include, without limitation, the following:

Unauthorized access to or use of data, systems or networks, including any attempt to probe, scan or test the vulnerability of a system or network or to breach security or authentication measures without express authorization of the owner of the system or network.


Unauthorized monitoring of data or traffic on any network or system without express authorization of the owner of the system or network.


Interference with service to any user, host or network including, without limitation, mailbombing, flooding, deliberate attempts to overload a system and broadcast attacks.


Forging of any TCP-IP packet header or any part of the header information in an email or a newsgroup posting.



Email
Sending unsolicited mail messages, including, without limitation, commercial advertising and informational announcements, is explicitly prohibited. A user shall not use another site's mail server to relay mail without the express permission of the site.

If you use an ISP that is downstream of WorldCom you are bound to at least this, but of course consult the AUP of your ISP first.

refer to:
http://www1.worldcom.com/us/legal/usepolicy/

Re: definition
 

mac, unless I'm not understanding things, an unsolicited message is a message that hasn't been solicited or requested, which means that no one could contact anyone else using e-mail if the message hadn't been solicited in the first place. So to really follow this guideline, we'd have to call people first and ask them if it's OK to send them e-mail? But that would be an unsolicited phone call, which would be phone spam. Etc. In other words, I think the term "unsolicited" needs to be better qualified.

Surely there's a common sense dimension to this topic which, if honored, would cut down on a lot of the frustration. It's one thing for me to notify colleagues when I've published a new book, and another to purchase one of those CDs with a million e-mail addresses and send the announcement to all of them. The first case is legitimate business and is often appreciated, but the second would be spamming.

aup
 

The AUP means whatever WorldCom decides it means. Remember that whey you transverse their backbone with your email, you are crossing private property. Your use (or more precisely your ISP's) use of the WorldCom backbone is subject to the AUP as WorldCom deems to enforce it. The key is "Is it massmail, sent to alot of folks at one shot who have not explicitly asked for it"
Emphasis on Mass.
We can split hairs here all we want, but ultimately it's decided by first WorldCom and then the Courts.
Bottom line is don't use email to market your product or service to people you don't know and if you know them, make sure you can prove they gave you permission.
There is much less gray area than you might think.

Right now massmail is clogging the internet. At some ISP's it constitutes as much as 25 percent of the email they move. That means more hard drive space, bigger servers and ultimately greater expense to consumers.

Remember a year ago when you could get free Internet accounts? Well the free ISP's went away...the untold story here was that in addition to the dot com implosion, the spammers virtually took them over and in some cases drove them out of business.
Spammers actively try to HACK mail servers now. Mail server hijackings are a daily event.
So I guess what I am saying is that this is far from just a semantic argument anymore.

If your ISP busts you for spamming, you are pretty much guilty...period...no arguments. If you depend on sending out mass mails for your business, well you better damn well have an air tight contract AND EVEN THEN it can be set aside if it conflicts with an upstream Backbone Provider's AUP.
The real bottom line is market your goods/services through some other means.

Curiosity
 

Hi guys. Interesting thread!

I got on to this as a company I'm training up are currently working on an HTML email template for a client (I know, I know...). Basically they want to send out a simple HTML newsletter to opt-in contacts. I'm not happy with the idea, but it is a REDESIGN they're looking for (so they're obviously happy that the model works for them), and anyway it provides a good dummy project for the design lessons :)

ANYWAY, on to the tuppence-worth.

I'm in Scotland, so I'm not sure if we're downstream of WorldCom, but I suspect whoever is up there for us has a similar AUP.

Now, presumably the AUP only REALLY comes into effect when someone complains. Unless a spammer is really clogging things up (on a par with DoS attacks), do WorldCom or whoever really monitor this stuff?

I was always under the impression that AUPs existed for two reasons - first, to allow "fair and free" access to a company's services (be they cell-phones, ISP accounts or whatever), and second, to give the provider something legal to pull out in the event of a complaint : It's much easier to justify an unannounced withdrawal of service if you can say "You violated our AUP" than if you can only say "We don't like you"

My questions are kind of directed in macubergeek's direction, as you seem to have some experience in these matters

First up, how heavily are these things policed? Now, before you say "It only takes one", I know, I know. But if I send out to 60 people on a mailing list for a university society (again, opt-in), am I running a risk of being spotted by my ISP, or does one of the society members have to complain? And their opt-in was written into their membership ("we'll keep you updated of events via email") - technically, if I DON'T email them, I'm in violation of their terms of membership...

Also, what constitutes "Unsolicited"? If Phil were to complain about his long lost buddy contacting him, would WorldCom be able to kick his buddy off. And not only would they be able to, but WOULD THEY? And would they then kick Phil off for sending them the complaint via email, as they didn't ask for it?

I am just curious here, as this really does intrigue me. Okay, we're on private property, but we've paid to be there. We've initiated a contract with our ISP, so is it really accurate to say that their AUP means "whatever they want it to mean"? Surely we have some sort of consumer rights?

And all the threats of legal action don't seem to stop the spammers. Has WorldCom ever taken a company to court for spamming? Or has a company ever taken WorldCom to court for unjustified withdrawal of service?

Just some thoughts, as we seem to be on "it's against the rules" territory here, while all the spammers are round the back of the bike sheds smoking and not getting caught :(

--

"Legally, a crime ain't a crime till you get caught"

a question of mass
 

Like I indicated it's a problem of mass. And like you imply the process is "complaint driven."
When you signed up for your internet service you signed a contract...and like all contracts there is fine print. When your ISP signed up with a backbone provider (WorldCom, Sprint, Digex etc) THEY signed a contract.

The bottom line is if you set up an opt in list then its your responsibility to ensure that if anyone gets your emails that dosn't want them, them they can get rid of them....take the mail lists as an example....the subscriber has to initiate subscription...then the list mails them a confirmation email and the subscriber has to confirm or reply to the list's email....The subscriber gets their email list, the list can prove the subscriber "opted in".

"Consumer Rights" are somewhat irrelevant here. AUP's exist to define what the customer HAS NOT paid for in their monthly internet connection bill.

Let me just say that these matters are actively policed. The problem goes back to the MASS problem as well as the cross border nature of the internet. Are there scoff laws that seem to get away with spamming? Yes. The real problem lately is that spamming is moving upstream from the porn peddlers to main street businesses who don't see that what they are doing is spamming. Again no one thinks their "marketing" is spamming.

The fact is marketing folks use spam because it's cheap. The problem for the rest of us is that it's grown to such proportions that it's crowding out all other traffic.
How would you like to turn on the tap water and find slips of paper urging you to sign up for a free dose of viagra? Ridiculous you say? I mean that would never happen right?

Spammers have been the target of legal action. The problem is it is growing far too easy to get away with it. Legislatures seem unwilling to pass laws criminalizing main street businesses who use spam...

Additionally, the beneficiaries of spam are often not the ones sending the spam. Most of the big spammers are professionals who are driven to more and more ruthless actions to stay in business.

Again don't split hairs over the term "unsolicited". Just because abuse departments get a complaint it dosn't always follow they punish someone. Again not all complaints are interpreted as a violation of AUP.

Cheers macubergeek - a well structured and concise response to my rambling and sprawling question :)

And I'm not splitting hairs over the definition of "Unsolicited" - that's my lawyer's job :D

/*edit - man, I need to learn how to spell...*/

brodie: were you trying to link self-reflexively to this thread, or was that an accident?

if intentional, I'm afraid you've lost me...what is your point, again?

The internet is a place where you can do anything you want. The moment people start imposing rules on what you can and can't do, it starts to become more like the countries we live in. Please let there be one place on earth where freedom still means FREEDOM!

Yes, I'd like the freedom to cause the servers of spam senders to spontaneously combust. :cool:

I don't think I'm going to get that freedom, however. We may just have to settle for rule of law instead.


Lerk; I think brodie's link was an unsolicited offer to join this thread. Now he's wondering if we are going to boot him, the link, the thread, or cause the forum server to spontaneously combust. :D

you do have the freedom to move junk mail to a junk mail folder. (this automatic feature is built in to all but crap email clients) you also have the freedom to not dish out your email address to all@internet.com. Freedom has given me the choice of bouncing to sender which is a great way of not receiving any more from that particluar source. If everyone bounced unsolicited emails to thier source, it may irritate the sender just enough to stop sending them.

P.S. I'm sure you will make a great dictator.

Or, since the sending address is usually bogus, the vast number of 'account unknown' auto-responses from the mail servers may cause them to spontaeously combust. How about if we just forward them all to you, instead? Spoofing your address as the sender in the headers, like many spammers do? Then you can bounce them back to your own mail server, as freely as you like.

I recently received a spam with MY email address as the return, and the topic was about growing a longer penis--an endeavor I'm not especially excited about being associated with. :eek:

Anyone say what they want about freedom and what not, but that just ain't right!

why don't you spontaeously combust?

No, but seriously I received the same email, but it went strait in to my junk folder, I then deleted it with all the other junk.
My point is, if I wanted a longer penis I would have apreciated this email. I don't want to know about war but should I stop people trying to raise awarness of the issue by sending bulk emails. If your going to silence some, why not silence all. right?

Have a nice day, kreesurgeon. ;)