[aldo_14]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/index.htm?section=cnn_tech

IBM unveiled a service Tuesday that sends unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who sent them.

[Slanker_MT]

Heh, that´s what they deserve
IBM

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by aldo_14
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/index.htm?section=cnn_tech

IBM unveiled a service Tuesday that sends unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who sent them.

Allthough at first one would say "Great!!", i think this thing will make the problem worst. Lots of servers will virtually go down due to the excess traffic.
Instead of researching such nonsense, they should work on a filter that stops the spamm at the source. Otherwise we are just plugging holes in a breaking dam with our fingers. We never have enough of them to plug them all...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing


Allthough at first one would say "Great!!", i think this thing will make the problem worst. Lots of servers will virtually go down due to the excess traffic.
Instead of researching such nonsense, they should work on a filter that stops the spamm at the source. Otherwise we are just plugging holes in a breaking dam with our fingers. We never have enough of them to plug them all...

It is a filtering system, because it also tracks the computers sending spam (which sounds a little like what Spamhaus do IIRC.... ); but what spammer would install filtering software at their end?

It's actually designed, from what I can tell, to save server bandwidth by moving the content blocking 'outwards' from mail server to the gateway.

[Fineus]

Would it not be simpler to have email companies cooperate with governments of major countries and simply adopt a "no tolernence" attitude to spam email. The largest offenders have their equipment taken and a heavy fine - should that not prove enough a prison sentence.

[aldo_14]

I think governments are probably more interested in making spam taxable.....

[Clave]

Spam, spam, spam



Loverly spam etc...

[vyper]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Would it not be simpler to have email companies cooperate with governments of major countries and simply adopt a "no tolernence" attitude to spam email. The largest offenders have their equipment taken and a heavy fine - should that not prove enough a prison sentence.

You risk letting governments get even greater control over the net.

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by aldo_14


but what spammer would install filtering software at their end?

None. But the idea is a filter on the ISP level, not the end user level. If the ISPs block the spamm comming out, they keep it from reaching the rest of the web.

The largest offenders have their equipment taken and a heavy fine - should that not prove enough a prison sentence.

No need, and not viable.
All you need to do is have the ISPs drop their contract for connection. Simple. If you spamm, you´re out. Some might say the ISPs want to make money, so there´s no way they would drop a contract, but if we think about it this would be in their best interest aswell, as their servers don´t have to deal with so much crap.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing

None. But the idea is a filter on the ISP level, not the end user level. If the ISPs block the spamm comming out, they keep it from reaching the rest of the web.

No need, and not viable.
All you need to do is have the ISPs drop their contract for connection. Simple. If you spamm, you´re out. Some might say the ISPs want to make money, so there´s no way they would drop a contract, but if we think about it this would be in their best interest aswell, as their servers don´t have to deal with so much crap.

The ISPs are legally liable for blocking their users, though; if they block a legitimate user, then they become heavily liable to damages.

  The other thing - possibly more important - is that there will always be grey-market ISPs happy to provide services to spammers or other ne'er-do-wells, simply because it brings in money.

[Fineus]

Originally posted by vyper


You risk letting governments get even greater control over the net.

Not exactly... if email companies forwarded data on the main reported spammers to their respective ISPs, the ISPs could then release that data to law enforcement agencies for prosecution. The only data forwarded would be that of the spammers.

I don't see any control issues there...

[vyper]

Because as always with government control, if you give an inch...

[Fineus]

Mmm... for a moment there I forgot how these things work.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by vyper


You risk letting governments get even greater control over the net.

governments have a major control over the net as it is... i'd be willing to sacrifice a smidget of 'control' to let them get rid of spam.

you have no idea how much we've been hit with spam lately at work.  i spend at least 2 hours a day going through all the spam that we filter, and blocking it.  

which doesn't help, because they use different methods that are highly effective.

[karajorma]

I'm for this. The only way we'll ever get rid of spam is if it becomes unprofitable. They'll always be ISPs who are willing to take on spammers but when it starts biting them on the arse it will stop being worth it.

[Carl]

so what happens if both parties have spam-back? will a single e-mail ping pong back and forth an infinite number of times? the e-mail client will crash. this is a bad idea.

[karajorma]

That's even worse for the ISP who sends out the spam though. Remember that most spammers don't just target one ISP at a time. They'll get more return traffic than they send out to a single ISP so they'll crash first.

And when they crash they now have a legal justification to sue the spammer.