Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:08:07 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> Robert Melson wrote:
>
>>> Ever re****t spam to Google? They obviously don't give a
>>> damn and have chosen to ignore their responsibilities, as
>>> you'll see from their return message.
>
>> Self-fulfilling prophecy.
>> If they only get a few complaints then maybe so. What we need is sheer
>> volume.
>
> HAVE you compared google's response to that of some other ISPs? Google
> is particularly uncaring about it. Besides, with free gmail addresses
> taking whole seconds to create, you're just playing whack-a-mole.
>
>> The alternative might be to hit the site and delivery shed-loads of
>> click throughs. The spammer will be pleased. Google will be pleased -
>> right up to the time when the advertisers get wind of the fact that
>> they're being ripped off and want their money back or at least decide
>> that they're wasting money and take their business elsewhere.
>
> I've got legitimate google ads on some of my sites. Abusing the
> mechanism to punish spammers, would punish those of us who don't abuse
> it. Not a good solution.
>
>> Again
>> volume is the key. In the long term it has to be in Google's interest
>> to deliver quality leads to their advertisers and encouraging this
>> garbage doesn't do it.
>
> Your concept is OK but your proposals for execution are unworkable.
>
> Here's a suggestion on how to fix it, at least as seen at your end.
> 1. Subscribe to a newsfeed which filters out the obvious spam before you
> even see it. news.individual.net costs 20 bucks a year or so, and
> blocks a lot of the crap I see people complain about but don't see in my
> newsreader.
*Not* acceptable. Why should *I* have to pay for other peoples'
misbehaviour. This is what it comes down to.
>
> 2. Use a newsreader that sup****ts killfiles, especially one that allows
> you to use regular expressions (regexp) for killfile rules.
*Not* acceptable. My preference is to use the all-in-one package which
is Seamonkey. Why should I have my preference dictated by low-life
parasites violating the T&Cs of the service providers they use?
>
> 3. Block anything crossposted to 3 or more groups. It's either spam, or
> a cross-posted troll. Of course there may be counterexamples but,
> signal:noise ratio being what it is, the occasional on-topic message
> that HAPPENS to be right for 3 groups at a time, is rare enough that
> I'll risk missing it to throw out all the trolls & spam that rule hits.
See 2.
>
> Sure, re****t spam when you think it will do good. I've been doing it
> for years. But playing whack-a-mole, or denial of service games against
> google, isn't going to get you anywhere, and MIGHT just annoy your ISP
> enough that _you_ are the one who has to find a new provider.
>
> Dave Hinz
>
Think this through. If spam goes unchecked there are two possible
outcomes.
1. If by doing nothing we let spam gain de facto acceptance then the
advertisers who go through Google and your site can cut out the middle
man and advertise directly by spamming. You lose, Google loses, even
the OP loses.
2. People desert newsgroups in favour of policed forums. For instance
I wouldn't bother using news to post a Ubuntu query, I'd go to the
Ubuntu forums. Such forums might be sup****ted by advertising but Google
wouldn't be able to guarantee selling edvertising to them; they might
take up with the competition or even sell advertising direct. I doubt
Google bought out deja news out of altruism. Presumably advertising
makes more money for Google when displayed on their own site than on 3rd
party sites so even if they do get to sell advertising to a forum they'd
still be making less than they do on Google groups.
The irony of all this is that the issue pro tem isn't even with junk
email addresses. It's with Google groups because that's the route for
posting by the OP and many other spammers. So by not applying spam
filters to postings through their own channels Google are, in the long
run, risking their own income streams.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
|
