|
Posted by Alun Jones on January 11, 2008, 11:25 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
If you can't get reasonable legislation to be effective against spammers,
why do you think anyone would want to do the same against people who are
legitimately fulfilling the company's goal of advertising itself?
Seriously, if you want to campaign on this issue, I would suggest
campaigning for spammers to be jailed.
Alun.
~~~~
> Client recently had website designed. Muppets who created the site posted
> most of the domain's email-addresses on it, as plaintext mailto: links.
>
> The exposure of this new website site to spambot-harvesting can be
> measured
> in days.
>
> Their mailserver is now inundated with spam, to the point where attempts
> at
> filtering are almost pointless. The domain may have to be junked, a new
> domain set-up, and and all company stationery replaced.
>
> Was just thinking that an awareness-raising campaign might be a good idea,
> to make webdesigners, bloggers, and coders of webdesign software sit up
> and
> take notice of the fact that PUBLISHING of unprotected email addresses on
> a
> webpage is a serious malpractice.
>
> All of these individuals need to be made aware that what they are doing is
> not only malpractice, but that it could also lead to their being sued for
> the
> resulting damage to email systems.
>
> Theree might also be room for legislation here, such as:
>
> -A requirement that the authors of webdesign software include warnings
> against any action which appears to be an attempt at plaintext
> email-address
> publication, such as entering 'mailto:' or 'xxx@xxx.xxx' into a webpage.
>
> -A fixed penalty to be issued to webdesigners who routinely ignore email
> security in their work.
>
> I'm not all that keen on legislation myself, but it seems this is an area
> where a proverbial 'kick in the pants' IS desperately needed, to make the
> offenders sit up and take heed of the damage they are doing.
>
>
| 
XML site map