CastleCops® - Fighting SPAM, the wrong way.

Anonymous writes "

A while back, after reading a newpaper about the efforts of Burns, I wrote this e-mail.
I received a read confirmation nearly half a month ago, but never received a responce.
As such, I am now taking my views public.

He is trying to pass new, and very costly laws that tax payers nation wide will feel.

>>
To: Senator Conrad Burns

I want to say thank you for your efforts in reducing the spam problems. I
understand the seemingly impossible task requires a lot of work, but it
will be greatly appreciated by millions.
However, I must question your approach.
It seems to me, you are repeating all the mistakes made with telemarkters.
They are to phone owners what spam is to e-mail box holders.
Similar laws were passed. Millions in tax payer money was spent in
courts, millions more to regulate those laws, and still, they can not be
enforced.
Consumer Affairs adds millions of complaints to its database of no
solicitors each year, and still, millions of people are aggravated daily.
If you can not control, even with laws, the situation in the real world,
what makes you think wasting time and more money on similar laws is going
to work in the virtual world?

I run my own small SMTP service.
I don't try to force laws and run up taxes to my customers because someone
tried to spam them.
Instead, I improve my filters, better my security, and block the spammers.
My tests have demonstrated that
services as Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail, and 97 other big name services, are a
joke when it comes to email security and SPAM prevention.
In a test of 10,000 email, containing 100 trojans, 1000 virii and over a
hundred combinations of SPAM methods, plus 100 legitimate email, they
passed along, even using the paid services that includes filtering and
anti-viral protection, more then 90% of the unwanted and even hazardous
e-mail processed thru their systems as well as prevent 18 of the good
emails from getting thru.
My service let 2 spam thru, and none of the hazardous mail. All 100 good
emails got thru.

These companies are not interested in the consumer, but in how much money
they can get by forcing people to pay for each level of protection.
The big name free for life services that illegally changed their policies,
like Yahoo, are the worse.
And then, even the best they offer, still pales to what it should and
could be.

It would be cheaper and easier to make SMTP services provide the best
filtering and security possible (at no cost) then to repeat the mistakes
of the past.

Once that is done, then pursue new laws to effect users of Zombies and
the like.
But until you can manage to control existing problem laws, why create more?
>>
"


	2002-2008 © Computer Cops LLC dba CastleCops®. All rights reserved. Acceptable Use Policy. Use signifies your agreement. 173ppm 0.109s (0.009s) Making cybercriminals unhappy since 2002*