[Gllug] Paying to send email..

[Dan Stevens (IAmAI)]

What really gets me about spam is that there must be so many people
stupid enough to help make it work. I mean, it's bad enough someone
opening spam and reading it instead of deleting it immediately, but
people actually buying what the spam advertises as a result of reading
it?! Are these people insane!

On 09/02/06, Nix <nix at esperi.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006, Adrian McMenamin moaned:
> > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 17:27 +0000, Nix wrote:
> >> This was *really* badly reported by the media (just like SPF, which the
> >> media also touted as a spam-killer when it has no such goal).
> >
> > Doesn't it? Seems to me that is an obvious benefit - in that it blocks
> > falsified sender addresses. I suppose I am classing phishing as a subset
> > of spam, but lots of spam seems to have bogus sender addresses.
>
> Yeah, but the *intent* of bonded-sender systems is `you agree in
> advance to pay vast sums of money if you spam'; since spammers won't
> agree to this, it's creating a `walled garden' in which mail is known
> in advance not to be spam. It doesn't cut down on spam volumes at all,
> just lets ISPs reduce the volume they need to filter.
>
> --
> `... follow the bouncing internment camps.' --- Peter da Silva
> --
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
> http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
>
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug