 
dadkins
Merry Whatever
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | "Legit Spammer"? Uhm... WTF is a "Legit Spammer"?
Panda? | |
|
 | 
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Re: "Legit Spammer"? Today It's all about the money!! | |
|
| | ltjordan
join:2001-12-02
Hyattsville, MD | Re: "Legit Spammer"? Amen. They can't stop the spam so they might as well get paid for their troubles. | |
|
| Ammler
Premium
join:2005-04-19
Pittsburgh, PA | This is why I shy away from any website that I have to "register" to use. Once they get your address, they abuse it.
And if I still "have" to use it, they get either my Yahoo or Gmail address so all the junk that I don't look at goes there. | |
|
| | quatrix
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | Re: "Legit Spammer"? The majority of sites don't do anything evil with your email address, but it only takes one to deliver a ton of spam. Try BugMeNot. | |
|
| | | 
sfdfds
@comcast.net | Re: "Legit Spammer"? Just use a garbage email to sign for those, thats what I do. | |
|
| 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| They call it "opt in", but apparently this refers to the email provider, not their users, choosing to join. The approved senders comply with some rules (they're identified, and no phishing); in exchange they get through the spam filters; and the users see a special symbol that's supposed to promote trust of the sender.
There was mention also that images and scripts would be "guaranteed" to reach recipients too (presumably referring to webmail interface) - so apparently it will overrule users' options to turn off remote images, thereby giving senders verification that the addressee saw the email.
That's what "legit spammer" means. A more truthful term for it is "selling the customers to marketers". | |
|
| |
MJL
@atg.com
| Re: "Legit Spammer"? There's no way technically to override a user's settings in the web browser or other user agent if the user says "don't display images" or "don't display images from 3rd party servers".
I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it.
Without commenting on the merits of charging for this service, the idea of an AOL or Yahoo consulting some trusted authority to verify that Acme.com is a legitimate sender (not a spammer, not launching phishing attacks, responding to unsubscribe requests, etc.) and allowing Acme.com's content through to the mailbox without being filtered, stripped, or otherwise transformed doesn't seem objectionable. You may find the idea of someone charging Acme.com for this special treatment objectionable, but that's a separate issue from "overriding the user's preferences" about whether or not to download and view images. | |
|
| | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: "Legit Spammer"? said by MJL :
There's no way technically to override a user's settings in the web browser or other user agent if the user says "don't display images" or "don't display images from 3rd party servers".
I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it.
Normally, if I have the "do not display" switch activated, I will get a place-holder image displayed in lieu of the actual image (which will not be "uselessly" fetched [since it is not going to be displayed] thus preventing the user from being monitored). What they MAY do for these messages is to fetch the image (or web-bug) and THEN check the "do not display" setting. This will delivery the place-holder image to the user while STILL allowing the "Legit" Spammer to use Web-Bugs and track the user's retrieval of the message. | |
|
| | |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by MJL :
I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it. That's what I was referring to. I thought it was obvious. Browsers do have an option to turn off all images, but I've never met anyone who actually used it.
Yahoo mail, for example, has an option in the email settings labeled "do not retrieve remote images referenced in emails" or similar. According to the article, and the company's website, the email provider overrides this user rule for the "certified" senders.
And I disagree with your judgment that it's acceptable. It's legal of course, as they're entitled to offer their email service on whatever terms they want. It is reprehensible though, because it's clearly contrary to account-holders' preferences. It's also deceptive: last time I looked, Yahoo at least did not disclose any exceptions to honoring users's preferences. | |
|
| 
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
 ·Vonage
edit:
June 6th, @05:58PM
| Grrrrr . . . . send me spam . . . and it gets reported, I don't really care if you're on AOL's "Legit Spammer" list or not.
In fact . . . I'll probably diligently research and report any and all related URLs, off-site hosted cgi_bin scripts, credit processing affiliates and anything else I can find out of any "Legit Spammer" junk.
If AOL says your legit . . . that means I'll be looking over it with a fine-tooth comb.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
|
| TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by dadkins  :Uhm... WTF is a "Legit Spammer"? Same thing as an honest politician, I suppose.
In other words, an oxymoron. | |
|
MrMoody
Liberal Capitalist
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·magicjack.com
 ·Embarq
| Filters The ISPs can pass these Certified emails through their filters, but all the certificate ("blue seal") will accomplish is to give me an easy way to catch them in MY filters. Anyone sending truly legitimate bulk messages like bill notifications etc., would be stupid to pay for this. | |
|
| wrad
join:2003-09-11
Fort Pierce, FL | Re: Filters What is the easiest way to filter using Outlook Express?
Thanks,
Ward | |
|
| smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Bill notifications aren't even technically "bulk messages" since each one is unique, and they go out during all days of the month, not all at once. And they're sent to individual email addresses, not bulk lists.
So anyone paying for this is sending you and thousands others advertising, since it is the same exact message for each recipient. | |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC | Of course you could always choose to not use the ISP's email system. | |
|
| 
Vertickle
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
edit:
June 6th, @02:42PM
| Re: Of course Nevermind  | |
|
|
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: A solution ? said by Mactron :This is a solution to Spam ? What am I not seeing here ?  It isn't a solution to spam. It is to make sure that large companies can guarantee their marketing messages aren't treated as spam by the ISP's that contract with the Goodmail service. That way, they know, for a price, that their messages aren't caught up by the ISP's spam filters.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
|
| 
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR | Re: Give the fee to the customers being spammed Yeah, pay me a penny for each SPAM that reaches my inbox, and pay me a dollar for each legitimate message the gets blocked.
I'll be rich in no time at all. | |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | bad bad bad i can see certs for email to tell who it is coming from but this is just another revenue stream for big business. NOT a way to deter spam.
--
www.LakeSemaJ.com | |
|
| Whome
join:2005-10-10
Newbury Park, CA | Re: bad bad bad Oh... You hit it right on the nose, follow the money!!! If you would like to write Peter Castleton of Verizon. I would bet if you took his first name then "." then his last name followed by "verizon.com" You would find his email address. | |
|
| |
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | Re: bad bad bad ha
on a side note i doubt he reads his own emails. Maybe after his secretary does. Pretty good spam filter there eh.
--
www.LakeSemaJ.com | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Why do I get the feeling.... ... That these "Service Providers" will wall you off from receiving your legit email unless they extort a fee from them?
I'm all for stopping SPAM. I'm 100% against my "Service Provider" charging a fee for people to "access" me. | |
|
| 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY | Re: Why do I get the feeling.... Kind of like AT&T's views on network neutrality applied to e-mail. "We build the pipes that carry those e-mails. If they don't pay us to get through quickly, we can't help it if the e-mails get delayed or lost." | |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| All Listed are Connectivity Providers Perhaps this is just their way of ensuring that "content providers" are paying to use "their" pipes and not getting a free ride?
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: All Listed are Connectivity Providers said by nixen :Perhaps this is just their way of ensuring that "content providers" are paying to use "their" pipes and not getting a free ride? No one is getting a "Free" ride... but apparently the plan is for a lot more people to be taken for a ride!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Gmail Gmail. I'm done.
Excellent spam filtering, good UI, lots of space, no BS. | |
|
| 
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| Re: Gmail said by jjoshua :Gmail. I'm done. Excellent spam filtering, good UI, lots of space, no BS. Agree.
--
A is A | |
|
| MeKuN
join:2004-07-21
Eugene, OR | I have multi yahoo accounts for crap; I use gmail for private.
Gmail gets no spam, only because i use it for receiving mail from just people i know not signing up on some bulletin board. | |
|
| |
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Gmail said by MeKuN :I have multi yahoo accounts for crap; I use gmail for private. Gmail gets no spam, only because i use it for receiving mail from just people i know not signing up on some bulletin board. The people you email get a virus and your email addy is now getting spam. Same for when your email is part of a distribution list so now everyone has your email addy and the chance of getting spam multiplies. | |
|
| |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| I have a similar situation. My Yahoo mail account is my "public" account. I use that for almost everything.
However, for close friends and family, I use my GMail account. Now my GMail account has gotten spammed. (Easy to guess address most likely.) GMail, though, traps most of these spams before I even see them. Only once or twice will a spam slip through. (Usually as spammers shift tactics and just before Google's filters catch up.) | |
|
| tpac_man
join:2007-02-27
Riverbank, CA | I this f**ked up man.. so now we'll be getting spam that can get through the yahoo filters because its considered Legit and not spam...someone please do something about this. | |
|
| | |
| Pakrat Mat
join:2006-05-19
99999
| Well designed interface definitely! I agree with your description of Gmail but another issue of this whole article is integrity. While those ISPs earn money to pass email on to you, Google's servers scan your incoming email and search terms to deliver 'more relavent' ads to you to make $$$. Greed is the root here and most other places so this shouldn't be a huge surprise. | |
|
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | 2nd Gmail....... Look at all the evil capitalist companies! Yahoo and Aol are dying out!
The cable & phone companies are F-ing evil and hate the internet.
GMAIL! Anyone know any other great email sites? | |
|
| CMoore2004
i r teh smarts
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: 2nd Gmail....... Look at all the evil capitalist companies! Windows Live Mail hosts the mail for my domain. Along with Windows Live Mail Desktop, this is by far the best solution for mail for me. Login via the web or with the desktop program... doesn't matter, it's all synchronized.
--
Sprint Mobile Broadband PX-500 | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD | |
|
| |
cysco24
@dadeschools.net | Re: 2nd Gmail....... Look at all the evil capitalist companies! I use spamgourmet.com so no one gets my real e-mail address...except spamgourmet of course =P
Best thing since sliced bread | |
|
| 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | I use spamcop, $30 a year, imap and pop3 and webmail of course, not free but close
--
BlooMe | |
|
MakeTHEMpayNOW
@comcast.net
| The only good Spammer is a DEAD Spammer ! There is no such thing as a "legitimate Spammer".
All who Spam should be castrated with a cattle branding iron, beat about the head and body with a 2 x 4 for a week, hung by their thumbs for a month, then thrown in solitary confinement for the rest of their worthless life or publicly stoned. | |
|
| TurtleFan
join:2003-05-03
Wyckoff, NJ
| Re: The only good Spammer is a DEAD Spammer ! What's a two by for? Sorry, old joke that doesn't work on the internet without the spoken emphasis to go with it  .
All this country is about now is the All Ighty Ollar, and how to get it any way one can. It's ruining us faster than David Hasselhoff on a drinking night..
These companies are already getting into politics...so why not just let them take over completely? Walmart can be the President.... Verizon employees can be the new Senate, Microsoft can be the new Congress...
Pretty soon the United States will just be run by all these businesses and we'll be bleeding dry in no time . | |
|
No to ESPN
@sbcglobal.net | This Amounts to a Tax on Spam Next we will be seeing the federal and maybe state governments allowing spam if the spammer pays a tax. Rather scary thought, ain't it? | |
|
| smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: This Amounts to a Tax on Spam It's not really that scary. Most of my spam is for illegal or illegitimate products. No one is government is going to sanction this kind of email spam, paid for or not.
And these kind of spammers make money now because sending 100's of millions of emails is free, beyond the cost of their ISP.
They won't make enough money to pay to send 100's of millions of spams.
Sure, there will be corporations that can afford to do targeted spams to thousands, and this will be annoying. But at least it won't be as annoying as hundreds of spams a day for porn or viagra from Canada. | |
|
| | MeKuN
join:2004-07-21
Eugene, OR | Re: This Amounts to a Tax on Spam I dont care if its for legit spam. Anyone think i dont want more advertisements shoved down my throat? I see plenty of adds on yahoo to pay for email address i dont need more. | |
|
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
Ajax, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
| What happens when....? ...someone figures out how to spoof these "certified" marks, or that one of these "certified" emails links to a sketchy site through a certified e-mail? Is the ISP liable for damages?
With the effort that most ISPs put into keeping their customers satisfied content wise, I'm not very sure of their resolve to keep things clean.
--
....where's my fiber? | |
|
DrData
Premium
join:2004-12-31
Apopka, FL | Block all the IP's of mail providers that participate! Me thinks all mail admins should block all IP's of the mail providers that participate in this crap (AOL, Yahoo, etc..). That will quickly force them to play by and uphold standards or shun them out of existence. | |
|
chef423
Chef423
join:2000-09-02
Springfield, IL
| FYI robots i have been "online" for longer than most of you (no matter the age, back when people used it for REAL work)..and I have to say, since the scam-age age of the Internet...I have NEVER clicked on a drop down, pop-in, or pop up..EVER. Why the hell should you? All of you, yes you, make it harder for the smart people, like myself, yes ME, to function in this "collection of cattle"...damn sheep.
I dont get direction of your functions, they are pointless. | |
|
| nolesch
join:2006-05-16
Paducah, KY | Re: FYI robots Uhhhhhhhhhh. Wanna cookie?  | |
|
theeinstein
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Fernandina Beach, FL
| Issue Well the root of the problem would be we as users stand by and do nothing about it. Each time 1 or 2 people jump up and down but if the mass went crazy about it then we would see change. Until then we continue to flop in the abyss of piss and crap that the provider decides to send us. | |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
edit:
June 7th, @01:17AM
| Remember Caller ID Block the Block The real money will be made when they leverage the system by providing us users a plan to block the "legitimate SPAM" they are allowing (for a fee of course). And then for and even greater fee they'll offer the "legitimate SPAMMERS" access to users who are paying to block the tier 1 "legitimate SPAMMERS", and so on and so forth. So they'll collect from both the SPAMMERS and the users. The only question is who will be willing to pay the most? The SPAMMERS for access or the users to block.
Remind you of anything? Like caller ID block the block. | |
|
| CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA | Re: Remember Caller ID Block the Block The real deal will be when some bored 16 year old figures out a way to beat this system...it always happens that way | |
|
PolarBear
The asshole formerly known as aaron8301
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA | Not Gmail Hmmm, glad Gmail won't be participating in this. Y'all have fun with your "certified" spam, I'll enjoy my one whole spam every month. | |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Charge the ISP Being that we are paying for the service, I wonder if people would have a leg to stand on if they "sued" or "charged" the isp with the wasted time needed to delete said emails. After all, these emails cost productivity, especially in the business world. When one has to sort loads of spam, it can take a while. The fact these businesses are not allowing users to opt out or applying said revenue to network upgrades / reducing price has to constitute some wrong doing. I am sure some good tort lawyers will find a way to make this system go down the drain. After all, we are the customers paying for the service. Why in the hell should companies benefit from:
A) Selling our information
B) Allowing us to be spammed
C) Wasting our Bandwidth opening mail when they bitch about usage......
Hope someone puts an end to this system. | |
|
|
|
|
Four Major ISPs To Use 'CertifiedEmail'
A solution ?
Give the fee to the customers being spammed
