At 20:48 12/18/2000 -0500, Curtis Johnstone wrote:
>Joking aside, every since I used Travelocity's Web site, and unfortunately
>gave
>them my e-mail address, I have been getting about 4-7 spam messages a day
>and
>it is getting really irritating.
Mine's been getting very high, and I redid my strategy a couple of months
ago which is a combination of white-list/black-list but it's still far from
perfect.
1. things to my personal addresses from known friends -> In.
2. things to work address from known colleagues -> In.
3. everything else goes through filtering trying to snoop out if its spam or
not and these sometimes catch too much (particularly things to public work
aliases to which I'm responsible), and sometimes not enough (when friends
send goofy emails from other addresses).
>I would like to write a "double spam" anti-spam filter. In addition to
>filtering rubbish, once the filter (or user) has found a 'spammer' (via the
>originator e-mail address), any messages received from the spammer triggers
>100
>messages (filter configurable) back to that originator address. Even if the
>originator's mailbox has magically disappeared, hopefully it would cause
>pain
>for the ISP's that allow spammers to work.
I have this little windows application that sends fake bounce message making
it looking like the email address doesn't exist. I don't think I can pipe
things to it (being windows) but if I can (or if I find another) I might
hook it up to my confirmed spams...
>I remember hearing a lot about U.S. anti-spam legislation -- and how
>'tough' it
>is. Is it too vague, or is it just not being enforced?
On that note, a recent excerpt from an email to a spammer (they didn't
respond the second time!):
At 11:30 12/7/2000 -0500, Shoe Chair wrote:
>Mr. Reagle,
>
>You are not being spammed, as your name came up as a potential customer for
>our products.
I am being spammed, I don't care where you got my name from.
>This message sent to you is sent in compliance of the new email bill
>section 301. Per Section 301., Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further
>transmissions to you by us of this email will be stopped at no cost to you.
First: your counsel has done a poor job! S1618/HR3888 expired in Committee
two years ago and IS NOT law.
Second: Even if 3888 was law I would sue for a civil remedy of no more than
$15,000 because you DID NOT comply by providing the spam removal as part of
your original email. [1]
Get some Net clue and stop sending this crap, and if you can't manage that
then get legal counsel at least.
[1]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:1:./temp/~c1051PmDAB:e29527:
H.R.3888Anti-slamming Amendments Act (Introduced in the House)
(2) COVERED INFORMATION- The following information shall appear at the
beginning of the body of an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message
under paragraph (1):
...
(C) A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited commercial
electronic mail to the recipient by the person who initiates transmission of
the message may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to
the originating electronic mail address with the word `remove' in the
subject line.
__
Regards,
http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/
Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
MIT LCS Research Engineer at the World Wide Web Consortium.
* This email is from an independent academic account and is
not necessarily representative of my affiliations.