[anti-abuse-wg] how to detect spambots - SPAMTrusted

On Tuesday 10 March 2009 09.49, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:46:37PM +0100, Jan Pieter Cornet wrote:
> > Definition, yes. UBE is usually easier to define and is practically
> > equivalent to spam. But pretty much everyone recognizes a spam if they
> > see one. It is therefore easy for a human to detect spam and take
> > corrective action against a spammer or spamming host.
> 
> This is actually *way* oversimplifying things.  
> 
> Some SPAMs are obvious, of course, but there is a wide area of "grey" in 
> between - some people send advertising e-mails that part of their 
> receipients find quite interesting (because the mails meet their interests), 
> while others consider them SPAM.

I object to this view. UCE is always spam even if some recipients "think" they
like it. Just look at all the suckers that get fooled by scams !

UCE or spam is illegal in some countries, however legal authorities does not
seem willing to hunt and procecute.
> 
> OTOH, we get SPAM complaints for info mails that people actually and
> provably subscribed to(!) [commercial service, people subscribe, forget
> about it, and later just report to spamcop instead of unsubscribing].
> 
That's a problem with opt-in lists too, but that is something list-owners has to
adopt to. The general public should not be carrying the burden just because "it
simpler for list-owners". Any sender of mail has to take it's own costs.


> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster

-- 
        Peter Håkanson   

        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
        ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )