4 ms·

Who on earth reports spam to originating server administrators? It might seem contrary to general sentiments here, but really, why not handle your own problem (

by chatman 12y ago

Who on earth reports spam to originating server administrators? It might seem contrary to general sentiments here, but really, why not handle your own problem (and adjust your spam filters) instead of troubling GoDaddy?

masklinn 12y ago
> It might seem contrary to general sentiments here, but really, why not handle your own problem Same reason why you should report spam to SpamCop: help clean up the internet, and clamp down on spammers so others don't have to deal with them? Especially when the originating server specifically has a policy of not allowing outbound spam.
- chatman 12y ago
  Then, instead of whining around on the internet writing blogposts and making money off those banner ads, the poster should have contacted local law enforcement authorities. I don't see why she should defame GoDaddy. If I had a server there, and I was accused of sending spam, I would have the right to know which address considered my email as spam (and determine for myself whether the user subscribed to my services or not).
  - kazagistar 12y ago
    No. You could send them the sha1 checksums of those who had opted in, and godaddy could confirm if it matched or not. You have no right to their personal information, but you do have a right to be heard. GoDaddy deserved every last ounce of negative coverage for this they can get.
    - devicenull 12y ago
      So, every time someone receives an abuse complaint, they should have to send checksums of every email on their list? What if it's a massive mailing list by a large company? What if it's a fraudulent abuse complaint, just designed to get the company to waste resources?
      - 6d0debc071 12y ago
        What if the company just lies that someone's not on their lists - they'll have to turn the information over one way or the other if it's to be checked, and it may as well be in a checksum as anything else.
        devicenull 12y ago
        I've never heard of any provider making someone turn over their mailing lists. Do you have any further information about when this has occurred? Generally, when someone gets too many spam complaints, or doesn't handle them well, they get terminated from the hosting provider.
        6d0debc071 12y ago
        > I've never heard of any provider making someone turn over their mailing lists. Do you have any further information about when this has occurred? --- I didn't mean to imply that was what happened. I said that they'd have to if it's to be checked. My thoughts were that you're either going to have to trust the accused spammer - in which case you can turn over the SHA of the complaining email address, and the provider can compare it to the SHA hashes of their own. Or... they're going to have to turn the list (again, preferably with the entries hashed) over to you - and then, I suppose, you'll have to trust that they're giving you a truthful list. But, either way, I don't see how the mere act of hashing the list is going to significantly alter the problems of nuisance complaints or of dealing with large lists. Hashing is a very cheap thing to do after all.
        devicenull 12y ago
        There's not really anything you can do about an individual spam complaint, aside from telling the end user and having them remove the email from their list (aside from things that are quite obviously spam). The problem is the 'Report Spam' button is also the 'I no longer wish to receive this email' button to non-technical users. Just because you've received a spam complaint, doesn't mean that it wasn't an opt-in email. Providers never attempt to verify your email list. If you generate too many spam complaints, you get terminated. It's not feasible for a third party to get a copy of your mailing list, then somehow evaluate how legitimate it is.
    - jsight 12y ago
      I'm not sure what good this would do. Wouldn't the spammer just include the ones that had not opted in (while claiming otherwise)? It'd be hard to prove them wrong.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    > Then, instead of whining around on the internet writing blogposts and making money off those banner ads, the poster should have contacted local law enforcement authorities. This and that are not exclusive. > I don't see why she should defame GoDaddy. Because they shared personal information with a complainee? If you go to the cops and make a complaint, would you find it normal that the cops go to that person and immediately give them your name and address? > I would have the right to know which address considered my email as spam Now consider that from the POV that your are a spammer and acting in bad faith, you've just been handed the keys to retribution, that sounds absolutely wonderful does it not?
  - anu_gupta 12y ago
    People should just just flag trollish comments like this. Feeding trolls just encourages them.
    - chatman 12y ago
      That is rude!
  - otikik 12y ago
    > If I was accused of yyy, I would have the right to know who accused me That is false for any value of yyy. You don't need the email address to defend yourself (which is ok), you only need it to retaliate (which is not ok).
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      That is false for any value of yyy. It seemed to be a comment drawing an analogy to the criminal legal process. And in the US, that process guarantees you the right to know what you're accused of, why you're accused of it, and to confront the people accusing you.
      - masklinn 12y ago
        > And in the US, that process guarantees you the right to know what you're accused of, why you're accused of it, and to confront the people accusing you. Only the latter being at issue here, and in criminal proceeding it's done through cross-examination during criminal trial, not by giving the witness's address to the accused.
        ubernostrum 12y ago
        In civil proceedings, there is the discovery phase where pretty much anything is theoretically up for grabs.
        masklinn 12y ago
        AFAIK there's no right to confrontation in civil cases.
        ubernostrum 12y ago
        You get to know who's suing you and subpoena all sorts of information from them. Which is effectively the same result. For example, if someone sues you for spamming (under some theoretical law which would allow that), you'd be able to know who they were and get information from/about them during discovery.
robotic 12y ago
She did handle her problem by reporting it to GoDaddy.

by chatman 12y ago

masklinn 12y ago

> It might seem contrary to general sentiments here, but really, why not handle your own problem Same reason why you should report spam to SpamCop: help clean up the internet, and clamp down on spammers so others don't have to deal with them? Especially when the originating server specifically has a policy of not allowing outbound spam.

chatman 12y ago
Then, instead of whining around on the internet writing blogposts and making money off those banner ads, the poster should have contacted local law enforcement authorities. I don't see why she should defame GoDaddy. If I had a server there, and I was accused of sending spam, I would have the right to know which address considered my email as spam (and determine for myself whether the user subscribed to my services or not).
- kazagistar 12y ago
  No. You could send them the sha1 checksums of those who had opted in, and godaddy could confirm if it matched or not. You have no right to their personal information, but you do have a right to be heard. GoDaddy deserved every last ounce of negative coverage for this they can get.
  - devicenull 12y ago
    So, every time someone receives an abuse complaint, they should have to send checksums of every email on their list? What if it's a massive mailing list by a large company? What if it's a fraudulent abuse complaint, just designed to get the company to waste resources?
    - 6d0debc071 12y ago
      What if the company just lies that someone's not on their lists - they'll have to turn the information over one way or the other if it's to be checked, and it may as well be in a checksum as anything else.
      - devicenull 12y ago
        I've never heard of any provider making someone turn over their mailing lists. Do you have any further information about when this has occurred? Generally, when someone gets too many spam complaints, or doesn't handle them well, they get terminated from the hosting provider.
        6d0debc071 12y ago
        > I've never heard of any provider making someone turn over their mailing lists. Do you have any further information about when this has occurred? --- I didn't mean to imply that was what happened. I said that they'd have to if it's to be checked. My thoughts were that you're either going to have to trust the accused spammer - in which case you can turn over the SHA of the complaining email address, and the provider can compare it to the SHA hashes of their own. Or... they're going to have to turn the list (again, preferably with the entries hashed) over to you - and then, I suppose, you'll have to trust that they're giving you a truthful list. But, either way, I don't see how the mere act of hashing the list is going to significantly alter the problems of nuisance complaints or of dealing with large lists. Hashing is a very cheap thing to do after all.
        devicenull 12y ago
        There's not really anything you can do about an individual spam complaint, aside from telling the end user and having them remove the email from their list (aside from things that are quite obviously spam). The problem is the 'Report Spam' button is also the 'I no longer wish to receive this email' button to non-technical users. Just because you've received a spam complaint, doesn't mean that it wasn't an opt-in email. Providers never attempt to verify your email list. If you generate too many spam complaints, you get terminated. It's not feasible for a third party to get a copy of your mailing list, then somehow evaluate how legitimate it is.
  - jsight 12y ago
    I'm not sure what good this would do. Wouldn't the spammer just include the ones that had not opted in (while claiming otherwise)? It'd be hard to prove them wrong.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Then, instead of whining around on the internet writing blogposts and making money off those banner ads, the poster should have contacted local law enforcement authorities. This and that are not exclusive. > I don't see why she should defame GoDaddy. Because they shared personal information with a complainee? If you go to the cops and make a complaint, would you find it normal that the cops go to that person and immediately give them your name and address? > I would have the right to know which address considered my email as spam Now consider that from the POV that your are a spammer and acting in bad faith, you've just been handed the keys to retribution, that sounds absolutely wonderful does it not?
- anu_gupta 12y ago
  People should just just flag trollish comments like this. Feeding trolls just encourages them.
  - chatman 12y ago
    That is rude!
- otikik 12y ago
  > If I was accused of yyy, I would have the right to know who accused me That is false for any value of yyy. You don't need the email address to defend yourself (which is ok), you only need it to retaliate (which is not ok).
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    That is false for any value of yyy. It seemed to be a comment drawing an analogy to the criminal legal process. And in the US, that process guarantees you the right to know what you're accused of, why you're accused of it, and to confront the people accusing you.
    - masklinn 12y ago
      > And in the US, that process guarantees you the right to know what you're accused of, why you're accused of it, and to confront the people accusing you. Only the latter being at issue here, and in criminal proceeding it's done through cross-examination during criminal trial, not by giving the witness's address to the accused.
      - ubernostrum 12y ago
        In civil proceedings, there is the discovery phase where pretty much anything is theoretically up for grabs.
        masklinn 12y ago
        AFAIK there's no right to confrontation in civil cases.
        ubernostrum 12y ago
        You get to know who's suing you and subpoena all sorts of information from them. Which is effectively the same result. For example, if someone sues you for spamming (under some theoretical law which would allow that), you'd be able to know who they were and get information from/about them during discovery.

robotic 12y ago

She did handle her problem by reporting it to GoDaddy.