Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

[Vermyndax <ve...@red-abstract.com>]

What was that Billy G. said about "No spam in 2 years?"

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/technology/msft_spam.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Outrageous... This will be sorely abused.

--JM

RE: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

[Roger Merchberger <zm...@30below.com>]

Rumor has it that Colin A. Bartlett may have mentioned these words:
>Vermyndax Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:56 AM
>
> > What was that Billy G. said about "No spam in 2 years?"
> >
>http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/technology/msft_spam.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
> > Outrageous... This will be sorely abused.
>
>Why would this be abused?

A quote from their own page:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= snip here =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Consent

V. Participating Senders must ensure that consent with appropriate 
disclosure or a prior business relationship exists prior to sending 
Commercial or Promotional Email Messages.

... snip ...

         3. Opt-In: The Recipient affirmatively requests to add his/her 
email address to a mailing list.

         4. Pre-Selected Option with Verification: The Recipient consents 
to have his/her email address added to a mailing list by leaving a clear 
and conspicuous pre-selected option intact. The Recipient receives a 
verification email notifying him/her of the subscription and providing 
clear unsubscribe instructions. Commercial or Promotional Email Messages 
sent under this form of consent must include clear and conspicuous 
identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation.

         5. Pre-Selected Option: The Recipient consents to have his/her 
email address added to a mailing list by leaving a clear and conspicuous 
pre-selected option intact. Commercial or Promotional Email Messages sent 
under this form of consent must include clear and conspicuous 
identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= snip here =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Among other things, define "clear and conspicuous", and if they accept a 
non-verified opt-in, then they don't have to prove that you actually wanted 
it...

Also note, they say that the bond would be "up to $20K" -> heck, it could 
be $500 for them to spew a million spams in one shot, then they get shot 
down, and it starts all over again...

Unless you've been around as long as I have, "SSDD"[1] would seem to be the 
acronym to remember here...

Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger

[1] -> Yes, for my and my 25-year-old TRS-80 Color Computers, it still 
means "Single Sided, Double Density" in reference to the 5.25" floppy 
drives, but for this discussion, let your imaginations run wild... ;-)

--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger   | A new truth in advertising slogan
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy...
zmerch@30below.com          |                         ...in oxymoron!"

Re: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Kelson Vibber" <ke...@speed.net>

> At 10:41 AM 5/5/2004, jdow wrote:
> >A cash bond of up to $20,000? That's a mere "cost of doing business" for
> >spammers.
> >{+_+}
> >         Iron port is going to be used as a sign of spam here.
>
> That's up to you, but if you do, say goodbye to your eBay outbid notices,
> your airline pricing and ticket confirmations from Southwest, Jetblue and
> United, your news alerts from CNN and Google, newsletters from CNET...
>
> These are just a few of the hits on the two RCVD_IN_BSP rules in our logs.

There is no goodby for spam, only viruses. I also don't use xBL or the
BSP xWL for guidance. The former paint with too broad a brush and the
latter will probably mean nothing. As for the news alerts, 'tain't
anything I can do about 'em any different now than if I catch them
when I make my own rounds on the news services. Of course, on that last
item Loren might think differently. Ebay has a special white formula
to be sure it is really from ebay. (If they outsource anything I am not
going to get it until I scan the spam folder.) The travel services
can be temporarily white listed when needed.

And that brings up a good issue for 3.0 or subsequent, temporary white
lists. It'd be nice to have a way to add something to the white lists
for a week or so and then revert to tossing it. (I do not trust people
to not send me email I do not want after a "business relationship is
established." Motley Fool routinely gets dumped on that score. It's
easier to dump the email than to risk even more spam if they do not
honor their privacy rules, whatever they are now. Of course, I won't
and don't report Macromedia or Real to the SpamCop-alikes. I make up
my own mind not other people's minds.)

{^_^}

Re: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

[Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>]

>A cash bond of up to $20,000? That's a mere "cost of doing business" for
>spammers.

I think a key point not to be overlooked is that the bonding agencies
check for the *history* of the organization submitting a bond. Spammers
with a consistent IP/domain are already blacklisted, and will not be
accepted. Applications from brand new domains have no "history" and I
would expect them to be rejected as well.

Of course, the spammers will be working on finding clever ways to fake a
history, so there will be occasional 'security breaches', but all-in-all
the BSP doesn't sound like a bad idea. It's a similar concept to the
blacklist, trusting someone else's 'judgement', only in this case you risk
a few false negatives instead of a few false positives. That is attractive
to organizations that have serious reasons to avoid false positives.....

My 0.02 dollars..... :-)

- Charles

Re: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

[Kelson Vibber <ke...@speed.net>]

At 10:41 AM 5/5/2004, jdow wrote:
>A cash bond of up to $20,000? That's a mere "cost of doing business" for
>spammers.
>{+_+}
>         Iron port is going to be used as a sign of spam here.

That's up to you, but if you do, say goodbye to your eBay outbid notices, 
your airline pricing and ticket confirmations from Southwest, Jetblue and 
United, your news alerts from CNN and Google, newsletters from CNET...

These are just a few of the hits on the two RCVD_IN_BSP rules in our logs.


Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net> 

Re: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Vermyndax" <ve...@red-abstract.com>

> What was that Billy G. said about "No spam in 2 years?"
>
>
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/technology/msft_spam.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
>
> Outrageous... This will be sorely abused.

A cash bond of up to $20,000? That's a mere "cost of doing business" for
spammers.
{+_+}
        Iron port is going to be used as a sign of spam here.

Re: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

[Pete McNeil <ma...@microneil.com>]

At 07:55 AM 5/5/2004, you wrote:
>What was that Billy G. said about "No spam in 2 years?"
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/technology/msft_spam.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
>
>Outrageous... This will be sorely abused.

This is the same problem I see with all variations on sender-pays schemes. 
Economics will drive control into the hands of the highest bidder so that 
_anyone_ with enough money will be able to justify and even defend sending 
anything to their target audience.

Control of content must be systemically retained the recipient or there 
will be no saving email.

My $0.05
_M

Pete McNeil (Madscientist)
President, Microneil Research Corporation
Chief SortMonster (www.sortmonster.com)

RE: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

["Colin A. Bartlett" <sp...@colinabartlett.com>]

jdow Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 1:46 PM

> Colin, bonded or not it is all spam; and, I do not want it. Got it?
> Good. If I want something I will actively search for it. If I do not
> want something I do not want mail about it clogging my mail box. If
> I want email from a source that is otherwise spam in appearance I can
> whitelist it MYSELF. If someone else chooses to delegate their own
> whitelist authority to the likes of Billy G or the "BondedSender"
> program then they get what they earned, lots of spam.

Maybe my understanding of the program is wrong but I was under the
impression that Bonded Sender could only be used by marketers that pledged
that they were sending to subscribers. I thought that if a spammer were to
pay a bond and then have that bond ripped through in a few minutes with all
the complains, Bonded Sender would revoke their license. According to their
site, they must not exceed the allowable complaint rate.
http://www.bondedsender.com/standards.jsp

So with that in mind, it seems that it couldn't be abused by spammers. I
don't like junk either. But if it's something I subscribe to, it seems
reasonable that a whitelist (or with SA, just a weight toward negative) like
Bonded Sender provides would save me from having to whitelist every legit
sender.

Is my understanding of the service or Microsoft's use of it incorrect?

cheers,
Colin

Colin A. Bartlett
Kinetic Web Solutions
www.kineticweb.biz

Re: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Colin A. Bartlett" <sp...@colinabartlett.com>
> Vermyndax Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:56 AM
>
> > What was that Billy G. said about "No spam in 2 years?"
> >
>
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/technology/msft_spam.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
> > Outrageous... This will be sorely abused.
>
> Why would this be abused? BondedSender has been around for a while and as
> far as I know it's worked great. This just says that Microsoft signed on
to
> use the service just as all of us have since SA 2.4.

Colin, bonded or not it is all spam; and, I do not want it. Got it?
Good. If I want something I will actively search for it. If I do not
want something I do not want mail about it clogging my mail box. If
I want email from a source that is otherwise spam in appearance I can
whitelist it MYSELF. If someone else chooses to delegate their own
whitelist authority to the likes of Billy G or the "BondedSender"
program then they get what they earned, lots of spam.

{^_^}

RE: Microsoft to whitelist "legitimate" marketers

["Colin A. Bartlett" <sp...@colinabartlett.com>]

Vermyndax Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:56 AM

> What was that Billy G. said about "No spam in 2 years?"
>
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/technology/msft_spam.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
> Outrageous... This will be sorely abused.

Why would this be abused? BondedSender has been around for a while and as
far as I know it's worked great. This just says that Microsoft signed on to
use the service just as all of us have since SA 2.4.

cheers,
Colin

Colin A. Bartlett
Kinetic Web Solutions
www.kineticweb.biz