Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......?]

Sat Jun 11 20:10:38 UTC 2005

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

> I think we can write off "legislative" until we fix the root causes that 
> gave us the CAN-SPAM act.  We'll more likely make progress on the 
> "judicial" side by finding a gung-ho DA who wants to get famous by 
> enforcing the *existing* laws - I seem to recall one up in NY.. ;)

I think legislative should not be take to mean only US! There is work 
on the tough law in Canada, Europe and other countries. And as US congress
begins to understands that it "you can spam" law does work, the replacement
will be thought and quite possibly the laws found then in other countries 
will serve as good basis for it.

On the less serious note ...

> I've been saying it for years - there's a *really* quick fix to the 
> spam problem.
>
> We just take a pool - a few hundred dollars from every ISP.  We hire some
> <insert ethnic> enforcment goons to "explain things" to the spammers, and allow
> the goons to be creative.  Have them visit one of the top-100 off the ROSKO
> list at random each week.  We'll be well on the way to done by the end of the
> summer. ;)

Since some of these spammers have millions of $$$, they will hire their own
<insert another nationality> goons to make sure ISPs and their goons don't
bother them. So did I hear somebody mention spamwar recently on this list? :)

> Squeamish? Oh bother. OK, so we hire lawyers instead.  Less bloody, but it
> takes longer and costs more....

Makes me wonder where the term "bloody laywers" came from if above is true :)

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net