Toward a Less Cluttered In-Box

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just released a timely report on spam by Hanah Metchis and Solveig Singleton. The pun in the title, which requires you to pronounce ISP as "isp" instead of "I-S-P," does not quite work, but their recommendations seem sensible, if unexciting. Metchis and Singleton advocate a multifaceted approach that includes filtering software at the consumer end, measures by ISPs, and more vigorous law enforcement. They acknowledge that the spam problem has gone beyond a minor nuisance and see a role for government but caution against overbroad legislation and unreasonable expectations about what the law can accomplish.

Comments

[TWC]

I would take issue with CEI's assertion that ISP's have made an impact on SPAM, or at least to the extent that they have done so, the actual business of delivering non-Spam email has suffered.

The real world effect is amply illustrated by how AOL handles the problem. AOL simply refuses to deliver vast quantities of legitimate email.

Worse, they don't bounce the email back to the sender either so one has no idea that a problem even exists until a client calls and complains that the file you promised never arrived.

AOL's anti-spam software effectively eliminates the ability to communicate with AOL subscribers unless a plain text message is sent or a direct response to an AOL originated email is sent. More often than not, anything else is simply discarded by AOL as SPAM.

If other ISP's follow suit it will soon force us business people back to old days of sending printed letters using the USPS, which, incidentally, has a stellar record of delivering mail compared to AOL, which touts itself as the premier ISP in the US, and is actually the worst.

SPAM is certainly a problem and I have a real simple and direct approach to it. It is called the delete key.

Perhaps that is a bit simplistic but it seems a better approach than the wholesale disregard of legitimate email that AOL is using today.

[Warren]

TWC,
You must be a spammer. I am an AOL user and the problem is that they don't filter nearly enough. I deal with friends, businesses, my web host, e-commerce, etc. etc. and have never had a problem with "lost" mail. The notion that the delete key is an effective counter to spam is ludicrous. The problem with spam is that it's creating gridlock on the information superhighway, thereby costing all of us. Deleting it after it's already been shoved through the pipes won't help. I'm not a fan of AOL (like I said it's not nearly effective enough) and I'm sure I don't want legislative intervention.
I think there should be a fee associated with sending email. Even one cent per 1,000 would be enough to put an end to nearly all the crap choking my box, and the stuff that still goes through would have to be much better. Also it would pay for bigger pipes.

[Xrlq]

I haven't read the Bowen bill, but the basic idea seems reasonable enough. If anybody is masochistic enough to opt-in to a spammer's list, great, but leave the rest of us alone.

[Kevin Carson]

Right on, TWC. First off, I have no love for spam whatever. I'm away from home about four days out of the week because of sickness in my family, and EVERY DAMNED TIME I get back my hotmail box is at the "critical" level.

But I'd rather put up with that, and having to delete a lot of crap, than the problems you describe. The problems of arbitrary filtering of legitimate email sound an awful lot like the problem of library anti-obscenity software blocking many or most radical political sites. All you have to do is have one idiot leave a four-letter word in a guestbook or message board, and your site may be blocked.

God save me from the people who are trying to "help" me without an invitation.

[Warren]

Kevin,
This is nothing like anti-porn software. It's being done as much out of demand from the customers as it is the self-interest of the ISPs whose systems are being choked with SPAM. The problems TWC describes just don't exist. Besides, this is a market solution, if it were creating more problems than it solved people would go somewhere else. I am no champion of AOL, I have many peeves with them and (like I said before) one of them is that they pass too much SPAM

[TWC]

It is interesting that Warren assumes I am a spammer. What I am is an accountant with a wide ranging practice. The problems with AOL refusing to deliver or return legitimate email to my clients has caused IRS assessed penalties--because in my naivette I assumed that AOL would actually deliver email or would kick it back to me with an explanation. You see, Warren, email is not just for keeping up with the party schedule or a way to keep love sick teen agers from killing themselves out of loneliness.

Email is something that business people such as myself use to send .pdf files of tax notices, tax returns, tax and newsletters, as well as some funny stuff or comments that allows us to keep in touch with our clients, friends, families, and business associates.

Since the dawn of 2003 AOL has consistently refused to deliver email from three different ISP's and from six or seven different email addresses associated with those ISP's. The response from AOL webmaster has been sweet and useless.

I don't believe sending my children's grandparents pictures of their grandchildren constitutes spam, but perhaps you do.

[F.S.M]

I agree with TWC. I'm not especially computer savvy, but I managed to build a website for my novel. I included a hyperlink to my site with my automatic email address, Suddenly, AOL refuses to send mail with my hyperlink included, although other links can be sent. Online service told me it was an anti-spam patch causing the problem. They promised it was an error and would be corrected. They have done NOTHING!

Spammers will find a way around this patch. I won't. Most people with legitimate mail being blocked won't. The only recourse we have is to change ISPs.

Before some know-it-all accuses me, I am NOT spamming anyone. I belong to a research list that's worldwide. Before, when I answered a question on that list, my link went with it. Site visits went up. When site visits go up, sales increase. In addition, when I corresponded with a friend--even sent them a joke--if they forwarded my mail, the link went with it. Again, this is NOT spam; it's simply a link to my web page that's included with my signature. But because of all the spam whiners, AOL is going to extreme measures and having little effect on the REAL problem. Most of the SPAM I receive comes from non-existent dummy screennames and ISPs. AOL is powerless to fix that, so they prey on the people who are paying them good money for AOL service instead. If they want to do something USEFUL, they could stop the annoying pop-ups that THEY initiate, but they'll never do that.

I've stayed with AOL for more than 6 years because it USED TO BE user friendly. But unless they can resolve this problem, I'm leaving. The webmaster doesn't respond to my emails, online help lied to me by telling me the problem would be corrected, and I'm fed up. Why should I pay so much to be treated this way? I am NOT a spammer. I send mail only to people I know and lists I belong to.

AOL's "cures" are worse than the problems they purport to address.

[Landolf Matt]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.1st-host.org
DATE: 01/20/2004 03:56:41
Please remember that the labels are your own.