anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
Dave Israel
davei at algx.net
Fri May 3 22:55:50 UTC 2002
Content providers have to recieve and hold spam mail before they
delete it. People and mailing lists who have well-published addresses
can recieve hundreds of spam messages a day. I know that, without my
filters, I would easily spend 30-45 minutes a day downloading,
identifying, and deleting spam mail. Not counting the frustration,
that's costing the company money.
I heard somewhere that ~$2 of an AOL users' monthly bill goes towards
spam management. (IS there an AOLer who can confirm or deny?) AOL
has some 10 million users. That's a lot of dough a month to handle
what appears to be no big deal. SPAM is a milder version, but it is
no better than if telemarketers called you collect to try to sell you
crap.
-Dave
p.s. Also, if you're a parent, do you think the spammer knows how old
you are before sending you "Teenage Girls Doing Farm Animals! Click
here?"
On 5/3/2002 at 15:27:08 -0700, Scott Granados said:
>
> I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
> can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
> friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what the big
> deal with spam is. Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some
> of my accounts more than others but I also get a real truckload in my
> snailmail box. Just as with all the pottery barn catalogs <no offense
> to pottery barn I guess>:) I have a delete key just like my trash can.
> I know at one time the argument was made, and quite correctly that
> people were paying to receive this service and these messages cost them
> money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per
> packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end
> user to filter properly and or dress that delete key. I always shut
> down customers who spam and disrupt service simply because I don't want
> the backlash or want specific ips blocked but in a way I don't feel its
> right that the carriers do the filtering it seems tome up to the end
> user.
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >
> > > > I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> > > > you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> > > > have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> > > > and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm that you do want the account.
> > >
> > > spam is like pollution in that (a) whenever you're not sure if you're
> > > doing it, you probably are, and (b) if everybody did whatever it is,
> > > life would be universally worse for, well, everybody.
> > >
> > > > Random disclaimer: Yes, we're a competitor of no-ip.com's... And yes, we
> > > > used to send similar emails to people signing up for an account,
> > > > although nowadays instead of sending them an initial password we send a
> > > > confirm URL instead.
> > >
> > > that's the right approach. no-ip's problem was they presumed my permission.
> > >
> >
> > You don't even have to be in the "big idiot" league to figure out that in
> > both the "wrong" and the "right" approach as sanctioned above by a higher
> > authority, an email message (aka spam) is sent to the presumed subscriber.
> >
> > One sends a password, one asks for permission to issue a password on their
> > site. What's the difference in the annoy factor, if indeed one were to be
> > subscribed by a secret "admirer"?
> >
> > Mr. Halmu chose to think, rather than bindly obey...
> >
> > --Mitch
> > NetSide
> >
>
--
Dave Israel
Senior Manager, IP Backbone Engineering
More information about the NANOG
mailing list