Posted by GilbertZ at 11:38 PM
| TrackBack
Comments:
I still think this idea would be more effective if they combined it with a nationally funded anti spam website.
In all honesty how can we not justify the large savings for the small cost.
In addition a bayesian spam filter combined with the above two ideas would make spam unprofitable.
Posted by: depression blog on December 31, 2003 12:25 AM
The problem with filters is that spammers keep working on fooling them.
As for a nationally funded website, there are a bunch of websites that provided some excellent info and ideas. Many wound up becoming victims of spammers DDOSing them to death.
I'm not sure how a bigger anti-spam website would stop spam. It would just result in a bigger target and another "from" address for spammers to use. If you've never noticed how not scared spammers are of authority, they regularly use the FTC's email address for reporting spam, as the spoofed "from" address in the spam they send.
But the bigger problem with national funding, is that the government is not only ineffective, but they are corrupt. It took them so many years to finally sign a law against spam? At least you would have thought they'd get it right, but it goes against the very basics of fighting spam, requiring spammers to honor "opt-out" protocols. Everyone knows that "opting out" of spam is the best way to get more spam. So their message is a joke. And they didn't allow individuals to sue spammers, even overriding state laws that provided some relief in this respect. The current law they signed is offensive and disgusting.
Congress has followed the suggested protocols of the DMA, Direct Marketing Association, a powerful PAC. They don't care what "We the people" have to say.
Posted by: GilbertZ on December 31, 2003 01:05 AM
Post a comment: