Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Spam retaliation or not

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Joey Carr <joey AT metalab.unc.edu>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Spam retaliation or not
  • Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:26:44 -0400 (EDT)


[BIG SLOPPY GRIN]

That's sorta' what I'm saying. I think that a "new religion" is what it's
going to take.

Anyway, in response to Brian's response, I didn't mean to suggest that
non-violent, or non-retaliatory action should be entirely passive. I
think there is something to be done, like a hunger strike or civil
disobedience, that makes a statement that's hard to ignore. And, of
course, it has to be in proportion to the thing it criticizes--a hunger
strike against unsolicited commercial email doesn't make a lot of sense.

Not to attribute Machiavellian machinations to two of the great men of the
twentieth century, but both King and Gandhi understood that the
legislation was already in place or would follow, but the important battle
was in public opinion--in winning the soul felt sympathy of the majority
of people. That's what I think we need: the act that convinces normal
rational people that spam is so wrong that they can't do it.

Personally I'm not quite ready to set myself on fire in the street.
Anyone have any ideas that might be more, uhm, practical than that?

-Joey


On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Beth wrote:

> Spiritual enlightenment through coping with spam. Religion for the new
> millennium.
>
>
>
> Brian <russellb AT yesh.com> wrote:
>
> >Hello. I just subscribed to the list. This e-mail seemed to me a great time
> >to chime in.
> >
> >I agree that turning the other cheek may be what is necessary. Gandhi
> >believed this literally and just for the reasons you mentioned bellow.
> >Sometimes it does take an act of submission and humility to show others how
> >violent and arguably wrong something is. Funny how our internal "ethics"
> >kick in when we see the direct results of our personal act of violence.
> >Suffering.
> >
> >Now how does this apply to spam? Well the theory is good but how does a
> >spammer feel bad when we accept his/her spam begrudgingly?
> >For the sake of argument does:
> >Spam = violence
> >Full e-mail boxes = submission or non-violent action
> >
> >E-mail and other kinds of modern communication removes some valuable
> >sensory
> >input that we rely on day to day. Such as smell & touch. Other senses are
> >greatly crippled. For example we can not see and hear the exact response of
> >another human and combine that with the abstract "feeling" that we get
> >being
> >next to them when we communicate with e-mail. Even web cams with mics is
> >debilitating.
> >
> >I am not a luddite. Though I do believe that we have to work extra hard
> >using written communication to keep it clear. You know how hard that
> >sarcasms can be in e-mail.
> ><sarcasm>
> >Whoa stay off the road! Someone can't drive a stick shift. Whoa!
> ></sarcasm>
> >
> >So I guess the very fact that we are only communicating with the written
> >word is the reason spam is so powerful. We have no easy un-ignorable way to
> >make spammers feel empathy. Thus trigger an ethical response. Stopping
> >spam.
> >
> >Cheers!
> >-Brian
> >
> >> I've always been tempted to go a little over-board in retaliation for
> >> spam.  Unfortunately Jesus was right, retaliation gets you nowhere, best
> >> to turn the other cheek.  If more spammers got email bombed they would
> >> just find more creative ways to evade getting mail bombed.
> >>
> >> For a while I took to opening unsolicited offers of credit and returning
> >> just the business reply envelope.  Usually I left them empty, sometimes I
> >> included promotional materials from other companies.  This did absolutely
> >> nothing but give me a tiny bit of sadistic glee and maybe clog a
> >> waste-basket or two at whatever enormous processing plant those letters
> >> went to.  After the Anthrax scare I decided that such a joke might go
> >> wrong and become cruel.
> >>
> >> So our best defense against spam and junk-mail is not necessarily a good
> >> offense.  In the case of junk-mail and cold-calls we have some means of
> >> recourse, these have been widely discussed in this list.  However, spam
> >> we
> >> must simply accept into our accounts and do our best to filter.
> >>
> >> Now here's a tenuous connection.  The other day I left my laundry in the
> >> dryer for too long, something I rarely do.  Instead of piling my laundry
> >> on top of the dryer the person who came along behind me actually *folded*
> >> it.  Now I feel so guilty that I can guarantee I'll never leave my
> >> laundry
> >> in the dryer over time.  And this saint of a person corrected my behavior
> >> without resorting to confrontation, retaliation in kind, or some kind of
> >> passive-aggressive note on the bulletin board.
> >>
> >> Maybe that kind of thing only works on the already good-natured, and
> >> exposure of the same kind would never stop a spammer.  Maybe so.  We've
> >> all agreed that killing people is wrong.  We all know it, it's part of
> >> the
> >> air we breath.  But the fact that everyone knows that killing people is
> >> wrong is a luxury of the time and place in which we live.
> >>
> >> One day we'll live with the luxury of everyone knowing that spam is
> >> wrong.
> >> It's an abuse of power and privilege that cannot be tolerated in
> >> civilized
> >> society, just like crimes ranging from petty-theft to the capitol crimes
> >> (though I do not in general conflate what is ethical with what is legal).
> >>
> >> Before we get to this spam-free utopia, there's going to have to be a
> >> revolution in ethical thinking.  The fact of spam's low ethical standing
> >> will have to become part of the air we breath.  I think it's people like
> >> my sainted laundry room reformer who will have to bring this about.
> >> Legislation is less likely to have an impact.  A law with commonly
> >> accepted ethical backing, such as a law against theft, is enforcible
> >> because it is infrequently broken because people know it is wrong.  Laws
> >> without such support are less enforcible because they are frequently
> >> broken.  Software piracy and marijuana use are two exemplars of
> >> activities
> >> that occur illegally mostly because nobody buys the ethical arguments
> >> behind the legislation.
> >>
> >> So, I think what needs to be done is to find that act, like folding
> >> someone else's laundry, that so clearly demonstrates that spam is wrong
> >> that only a hand full of deranged or highly confused people can ignore
> >> it.
> >> I typically go in for the retaliation bit, so I'm fresh out of ideas.
> >> Anyone?
> >>
> >> -Joey
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Steven Champeon wrote:
> >>
> >>> on Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:19:48AM -0400, Bill Geschwind wrote:
> >>>> This morning I came across a write-up of a study about the origins of
> >>>> spam email. Do those of you who manage mail servers find the results of
> >>>> this study plausible?
> >>>
> >>> Yep, though they didn't mention that many addresses are simply made up,
> >>> whether through deliberate attempts to bloat "millions" CDs, or just due
> >>> to general incompetence of the programmers writing scrapers.
> >>>
> >>> As of this writing, I have 1073 verified spamtraps - "addresses", or
> >>> strings in the form of an address, that have never been live accounts or
> >>> have been disabled for over a year. Most are munged forms of real
> >>> accounts or message-IDs scraped off public mailing list archives. The
> >>> vast majority of the spam I get is sent to one of these spamtrap
> >>> addresses or one of the addresses I've used on Usenet, the Web, or the
> >>> whois database.
> >>>
> >>> To give you an idea of volume, I've received 5923 spam messages this
> >>> month, and my spamtraps have received 8326 so far. That's about 620
> >>> messages per day, all of it spam. Fortunately, we're catching a large
> >>> percentage of it through the use of various filters and the like, maybe
> >>> even 99%, but that still means from 5-10 spam messages get through a
> >>> day. I'm trying various mechanisms to limit that while maintaining a
> >>> sane (ideally zero) false positive rate, but so far I've found nothing
> >>> that catches it all without increasing the odds of catching legit mail
> >>> sent through irresponsible ISP's mail servers or with suspiciously
> >>> invalid headers (cough, Outlook/Exchange/Notes/etc., cough), or with
> >>> contents resembling some other spam, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >---
> >Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> >http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> >You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> >To unsubscribe visit
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
> >
>
>
>

--





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page