[PLUG] ORS and spam - success rate of "remove" options in spam

Greg Long greg at gregory.myftp.org
Fri Apr 5 08:25:25 UTC 2002


  I still suggest that people never reply to spam, as we all know it 
simply validates their email address should an engine be set up to 
account for that at the from or reply-to address.

However, recently a friend informed me that he was getting a 
considerable ammount of spam until he followed the "remove" instructions 
enclosed in his spam emails and they stopped coming. I will ask him for 
more detail, though this raises the question: Are there any recent 
studies on the effectiveness of these remove links?
My guess is that supposing 9 out of 10 work, that 1 in 10 will get you 
more unremovable spam than you can shake a NIC card at.


Rich Shepard wrote:

>  I just read the applicable ORS for faxed spam, and it does (unfortunately)
>explicitly reference the transmission of spam over telephone wires by
>facsimile machies.
>
>  However, on the bright side, it is much easier to modify a law than it is
>to create a new one. (I know because last session produced a law that I
>conceived and helped to nurse through the legislative process.)
>
>  I encourage you to contact your state representative and senator (as I
>will do) and ask them to make a small modification to ORS 636.872: remove
>the explicit references to "facsimile machines" and replace them with
>references to "digital or analog transmission". Should receive a warm
>welcome. :-)
>
>  If those of you who live in Washington will check the language of the
>Washington anti-spam statute, please share with us the wording. I believe we
>have an opening here to do something useful and productive.
>
>Rich
>
>
>______________
>_________________________________
>PLUG mailing list
>PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org <mailto:PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org>
>http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
>








More information about the PLUG mailing list