Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

[Scott Granados <scott () graphidelix net>]

Well the costs you mentioned  with aol seem high but I suppose are 
possible.  Being a parent however and having three children who do use 
the net extensively I see your point about the content they receive but 
of course the ultimate responsibility for what they are exposed to on 
the net lies with me the parent.  I realize in my case the  the case of 
everyone rrading this list I'd say that we're a lot more educated and 
aware of what's  likely to arrive in their inboxes so we address and are 
more concerned with this but I believe that protecting children is the 
parents responsibility entirely.  The case against spam probably should 
be decided entirely on economics not on content issues.  Several really 
solid points are being made here concerning the economics of spam and 
how it differs from snailmail.  I'm actually very glad I asked the 
question as the answers have given me a lot to think about and I'll go 
so far as strengthened or rather made me more determined to take an 
antispam position.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Dave Israel wrote:

> Content providers have to recieve and hold spam mail before they
> delete it.  People and mailing lists who have well-published addresses
> can recieve hundreds of spam messages a day.  I know that, without my
> filters, I would easily spend 30-45 minutes a day downloading,
> identifying, and deleting spam mail.  Not counting the frustration,
> that's costing the company money.
>
> I heard somewhere that ~$2 of an AOL users' monthly bill goes towards
> spam management.  (IS there an AOLer who can confirm or deny?)  AOL
> has some 10 million users.  That's a lot of dough a month to handle
> what appears to be no big deal.  SPAM is a milder version, but it is
> no better than if telemarketers called you collect to try to sell you
> crap.
>
> -Dave
>
> p.s. Also, if you're a parent, do you think the spammer knows how old
> you are before sending you "Teenage Girls Doing Farm Animals! Click
> here?" 
>
>
> On 5/3/2002 at 15:27:08 -0700, Scott Granados said:
> > I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge... 
> > can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most 
> > friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what the big 
> > deal with spam is.  Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some 
> > of my accounts more than others but I also get a real truckload in my 
> > snailmail box.  Just as with all the pottery barn catalogs <no offense 
> > to pottery barn I guess>:) I have a delete key just like my trash can.  
> > I know at one time the argument was made, and quite correctly that 
> > people were paying to receive this service and these messages cost them 
> > money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per 
> > packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end 
> > user to filter properly and or dress that delete key.  I always shut 
> > down customers who spam and disrupt service simply because I don't want 
> > the backlash or want specific ips blocked but in a way I don't feel its 
> > right that the carriers do the filtering it seems tome up to the end 
> > user.
> >
> > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> > > > > you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> > > > > have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> > > > > and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm that you do want the account.
> > > >
> > > > spam is like pollution in that (a) whenever you're not sure if you're
> > > > doing it, you probably are, and (b) if everybody did whatever it is,
> > > > life would be universally worse for, well, everybody.
> > > >
> > > > > Random disclaimer: Yes, we're a competitor of no-ip.com's... And yes, we
> > > > > used to send similar emails to people signing up for an account,
> > > > > although nowadays instead of sending them an initial password we send a
> > > > > confirm URL instead.
> > > >
> > > > that's the right approach.  no-ip's problem was they presumed my permission.
> > >
> > > You don't even have to be in the "big idiot" league to figure out that in 
> > > both the "wrong" and the "right" approach as sanctioned above by a higher 
> > > authority, an email message (aka spam) is sent to the presumed subscriber.
> > >
> > > One sends a password, one asks for permission to issue a password on their
> > > site. What's the difference in the annoy factor, if indeed one were to be 
> > > subscribed by a secret "admirer"?
> > >
> > > Mr. Halmu chose to think, rather than bindly obey...
> > >
> > > --Mitch
> > > NetSide