CSC 379:Week 1, Group 1: Difference between revisions

From Expertiza_Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


* Charge for e-mail sent
* Charge for e-mail sent
** [http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/0,1000002138,39145632,00.htm Article_rename_and_comment_me_please]   
** It is believed that charging people for every e-mail sent would virtually eliminate spam all together. E-mail would become much like the postal service in which a fee is charge for every message sent, like a stamp. The idea being that bulk e-mails would be no more economical than direct mail and would eliminate e-mail as a free form of advertising. Charging to send messages makes the costs far too high for spammers to make any profit. Many people feel however that this goes against the libertarian ideas and freedom the internet was based on. Ultimately it could be a burden to ordinary citizens and companies who rely on e-mail in every day life.
*** [http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/0,1000002138,39145632,00.htm Is it Time to Charge for E-mail?]   




Line 25: Line 26:


* Bounties
* Bounties
** [http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?CategoryID=3&ArticleID=7616 Article1_rename_and_comment_me_please]
** The Federal Trade Commission has recently proposed offering a cash bounty to any citizen who helps to arrest spammers. Under the proposal the first citizen to come forward with information leading to the arrest of a spammer will receive no less than 20% of the civil penalty the FTC would eventually collect from spammers arrested due to that information. The idea is that it would be more effective if the average citizen spent the same amount of time searching for and reporting spammers as they did preventing and deleting the spam messages themselves. This would stop the problem at the root.
** [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 Article2_rename_and_comment_me_please]
** The main problem with this idea is if the FTC, FBI, and ISPs can’t find and prosecute spammers how are ordinary citizens supposed to do any better. Ordinary citizens are very unlikely to catch spammers. Rather than prosecuting spammers who abuse the internet it is believed so called “bounty hunters” are more likely to attack legitimate companies guilty of some minor, unintentional breach of the complicated CAN-SPAM Act. Putting justice in the hands of the people like this could lead to an error of internet vigilantism.
*** [http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?CategoryID=3&ArticleID=7616 Spam Bounties]
*** [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Combat Spammers]




* The "Goodmail" approach
* The "Goodmail" approach
** [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124762-page,1/article.html Article1_rename_and_comment_me_please]
** With the “Goodmail” approach ISPs would sell an electronic postage stamp to companies wishing to send out bulk e-mails to their customers. This stamp guarantees companies that their e-mail will bypass all of an e-mail’s spam filters and go straight to the main mailbox as a certified message that is legitimate and safe for the reader to open. This would help people distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent e-mail by guaranteeing who the e-mail is from and that it is not a scam or virus. Also it would reduce spam by forcing companies to only contact customers likely to respond to a message in order to keep the cost of mass e-mailing down. “Goodmail” makes it unprofitable for spammers to send out bulk e-mail to which few people respond.
** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=6efb03c8cbfac79e&ex=1296795600 Article1_rename_and_comment_me_please]
** While “Goodmail” is intended to reduce bulk e-mail and provide security from phishing and scams many people feel it is just a new revenue source for ISPs and not a valid way of fighting spam. It is possible that too many marketers will be willing to pay to have their e-mails certified, resulting in large numbers of advertisements guaranteed to bypass your spam filters and go straight to your inbox. “Goodmail” is unfair to small business and non-profit organizations who can’t afford to pay for their bulk e-mails.  Also “Goodmail” could cause users to view all e-mail that is not certified as unsafe. This could cause users to skip over requested e-mails because they are not certified. 
*** [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124762-page,1/article.html Spam Slayer]
*** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=6efb03c8cbfac79e&ex=1296795600 Postage is Due for Companies Sending E-mail]




* Bonds with escrow agencies
* Bonds with escrow agencies

Revision as of 19:27, 6 July 2007

Techniques against spam


  • Require users to request permission to send you e-mail (i.e. Earthlink spam blocker)


  • Charge for e-mail sent
    • It is believed that charging people for every e-mail sent would virtually eliminate spam all together. E-mail would become much like the postal service in which a fee is charge for every message sent, like a stamp. The idea being that bulk e-mails would be no more economical than direct mail and would eliminate e-mail as a free form of advertising. Charging to send messages makes the costs far too high for spammers to make any profit. Many people feel however that this goes against the libertarian ideas and freedom the internet was based on. Ultimately it could be a burden to ordinary citizens and companies who rely on e-mail in every day life.



  • Bounties
    • The Federal Trade Commission has recently proposed offering a cash bounty to any citizen who helps to arrest spammers. Under the proposal the first citizen to come forward with information leading to the arrest of a spammer will receive no less than 20% of the civil penalty the FTC would eventually collect from spammers arrested due to that information. The idea is that it would be more effective if the average citizen spent the same amount of time searching for and reporting spammers as they did preventing and deleting the spam messages themselves. This would stop the problem at the root.
    • The main problem with this idea is if the FTC, FBI, and ISPs can’t find and prosecute spammers how are ordinary citizens supposed to do any better. Ordinary citizens are very unlikely to catch spammers. Rather than prosecuting spammers who abuse the internet it is believed so called “bounty hunters” are more likely to attack legitimate companies guilty of some minor, unintentional breach of the complicated CAN-SPAM Act. Putting justice in the hands of the people like this could lead to an error of internet vigilantism.


  • The "Goodmail" approach
    • With the “Goodmail” approach ISPs would sell an electronic postage stamp to companies wishing to send out bulk e-mails to their customers. This stamp guarantees companies that their e-mail will bypass all of an e-mail’s spam filters and go straight to the main mailbox as a certified message that is legitimate and safe for the reader to open. This would help people distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent e-mail by guaranteeing who the e-mail is from and that it is not a scam or virus. Also it would reduce spam by forcing companies to only contact customers likely to respond to a message in order to keep the cost of mass e-mailing down. “Goodmail” makes it unprofitable for spammers to send out bulk e-mail to which few people respond.
    • While “Goodmail” is intended to reduce bulk e-mail and provide security from phishing and scams many people feel it is just a new revenue source for ISPs and not a valid way of fighting spam. It is possible that too many marketers will be willing to pay to have their e-mails certified, resulting in large numbers of advertisements guaranteed to bypass your spam filters and go straight to your inbox. “Goodmail” is unfair to small business and non-profit organizations who can’t afford to pay for their bulk e-mails. Also “Goodmail” could cause users to view all e-mail that is not certified as unsafe. This could cause users to skip over requested e-mails because they are not certified.


  • Bonds with escrow agencies