[SOC] Fw: SPAM

[Bill Cunningham]

Re: SPAMForwarding msg explaining why arrl.net users get spam.


----- Original Message -----=20
From: Shelley, Barry, N1VXY=20
To: k4ksr@arrl.net=20
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: SPAM


Dear Mr. Cunningham:=20

First, I appreciate your writing on this subject and yes, we understand =
the problem of spam. Of course, as you know, spam is a problem across =
the entire Internet, not simply the arrl.net forwarding service.

As you point out, spam goes through several servers on its delivery =
path, including cox.net, your home ISP. Any ISP could attempt to apply =
filters to all these messages but it isn't as easy or as inexpensive as =
people seem to think. I'm assuming that cox.net isn't filtering either =
since the messages are being delivered to your mailbox. It may be that, =
like almost all filtering at the enterprise level, they aren't very =
effective. And, unlike ISP's the arrl.net is simply a forwarding =
service, not a "store and forward" system like the ISPs. The server will =
only forward a message that is sent to a valid arrl.net address.=20

We have looked for possible solutions for the arrl.net to reduce spam =
but like almost every ISP in the country, we have not found a solution =
we could implement without having to charge the member/users an =
additional fee. ISP's can implement some form of limited filtering but =
they also have a revenue stream from which to pay for this service =
unlike the arrl.net which was started as a free service for the members. =
I'm not sure that even if we could afford the filtering solutions we've =
seen, we could expect to do any better than the large commercial ISP's =
who are theoretically, experts in the field of the Internet and related =
services.

You pose the question of whether or not we should promote this service. =
Maybe not, but there are thousands of members who are using the service =
so it seems it is modestly attractive to some. Should it be considered =
as a main benefit of membership and one that should take up a =
disproportionate percentage of our limited resources (either financial =
or human)? I'm sure we would agree that it shouldn't.

I must respectfully disagree with your premise that, because we won't do =
more than your home ISP, we are part of the problem. Individuals are as =
much a part of the issue as the ISP's. Many people seem all too willing =
to post their e-mail addresses in public on web sites all across the =
Internet for anyone, spammers included, to use. Then they're upset that =
spammers, who capture those addresses (and in some cases sell them to =
other spammers), send them unsolicited e-mail and, in addition, complain =
to their ISP for allowing them to send the messages. Some people would =
argue that that is a little like posting your home mail address in =
public and then yelling at the mailman for not sorting through your mail =
and discarding all the letters he thinks you don't want. But I should =
point out that is only one man's opinion, not an organizational belief.

Are we ignoring the issue, no. Have we been successful at solving it? Of =
course not. But neither has anyone else. If they had, I can almost =
guarantee that every ISP in the country would be using that solution. =
But that's simply not the case. Will we continue to look? Yes we will =
but we will also not spend a disproportionate amount of resources on =
something that is not as critical to the core mission of the =
organization. If and when, we find a solution that is appropriate, we =
will implement it.

Again, I appreciate your writing to us.=20

73,=20
Barry Shelley, N1VXY=20
ARRL, Inc.=20

-----Original Message-----=20
From: Bill Cunningham [mailto:k4ksr@arrl.net]=20
Posted At: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:11 PM=20
Posted To: webmaster=20
Conversation: SPAM=20
Subject: SPAM=20



Hopefully this will reach both management and IS technical personnel.=20

1.  The ARRL forwarding service is my #1 source of spam, much of it =
obscene.=20
I know you are not the originating source, but it does pass through your =

forwarding server.  Best response I can get from your web page and in =
email=20
to SM is "Not our problem."=20

This is entirely the wrong answer.  If you don't believe me, then you =
are=20
part of the problem.=20

2.  ARRL continues to advertise that this forwarding service is a major=20
benefit of membership.  Well, it is becoming a nonbenefit to the point =
that=20
I'm seriously considering other arrangements.  If you advertise it as a=20
benefit, you have to accept responsibility for the quality of the =
benefit.=20
Truth in advertising starts at the top. You can't have this both ways.=20
Either fix the problem or stop advertising the benefit.=20

3.  There are technical solutions to this problem.  ARRL promotes the =
high=20
tech end of ham radio and should be competent to minimize the spam.  =
QSL.net=20
seems able.  Surely, you can do as  well.=20

4.  Of the spam I receive, most has a highly recognizable form of=20
addressing/subject/content.  My mailer (Outlook Express) has very =
limited=20
mail handling rules, but I'm able to identify a fair amount just using a =
few=20
rules.  What I cannot do is establish rules with a logical AND, and thus =

must put up with spam that would be eliminated by even the most =
rudimentary=20
spam filter.  Surely you can do better than I can.=20

5.  I have adopted the policy of autoforwarding autorecognized spam to=20
webmaster@arrl.org.  This was at suggestion of HQ staffer, BTW.  I'm=20
recommending that others do the same. I'm sure this is a pain to you and =
I=20
know you can block incoming mail from me.  You could also choose to =
solve=20
the problem.=20

6.  For what it is worth, I'm not a member of the anti-ARRL fringe.  But =
I=20
am seriously annoyed by the spam and absolutely furious by the apparent=20
attitude that is not your responsibility.  I hope the current practice=20
represents an oversight and not an ethical decision to advertise a =
service=20
with the intent to make it substandard. That is unacceptable.=20

Sincerely,=20
Bill Cunningham,=20
K4KSR=20






--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---