[Merged] Spam/Viruses on ntl.

[Stuartbe]

This poll relates to thread - http://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/showt...9&page=1&pp=15

How do you think ntl should handle spam ?

[Sociable]

Depends on how you define the spam to be blocked as it stands the definition is way to broad in terms of what we discussed in the other thread.

Better poll would maybe be "should NTL be taking positive steps to reduce spam server side?", and if so then add definitions of which specific abuses should be included in such an exercise.

Just a thought.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Sociable

Depends on how you define the spam to be blocked as it stands the definition is way to broad in terms of what we discussed in the other thread.

Better poll would maybe be "should NTL be taking positive steps to reduce spam server side?", and if so then add definitions of which specific abuses should be included in such an exercise.

Just a thought.

Maybe it would m8

However - I want to see how NTL customers feel about NTL filtering there mail. I tell you what - If people vote in favor of killing it at the server then I will buy you a drink, If people vote in favor of flaging the mail then you can buy me a drink and if people vote to leave it alone then we both have to buy a drink

( No rigging the poll for rep points now chaps )

[Sociable]

Guess the true proof of this pudding will be what NTL actually decide to do or are eventualy coerced to do by any new legislation or regulation.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Sociable

Guess the true proof of this pudding will be what NTL actually decide to do or are eventualy coerced to do by any new legislation or regulation.

Is that a yes to buying the beers then ?

There are some new laws coming into play regarding spam so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Jon M]

personally i think NTL should operate a blacklist.. the method popularised by http://www.spamhaus.org

recently those with hotmail accounts will have notice a huge reduction in spam.. they are now operating a blacklist.

it's not totally watertight.. but i think it's the only server side method that won't block anything legit

something is better than nothing as they say

[Shaun]

I voted for "Block it at the server" because I find Yahoo's service very good, and I've not lost a single e-mail that I've wanted (that I know of).

They should never delete any e-mail addressed to me, that is not their right.

I don't mind if they want to mark it as possible spam.

[Fawkes]

I'm surprised the poll is 2/3 in favour of blocking server side so far, does that mean 66% of the people who voted are confident in NTL ability to only block spam and not the mail they want? I'd prefer them to flag it as spam so I can divert it into a separate folder for a quick look if I think I've missed something. People are complaining about missing mail already and this would only make the problem worse, remember port blocking becoming the fall guy for everyones problems when that was introduced.

The problem is that if you ask 100 people what should be blocked and what shouldn't you will most likely get 100 different answers.

As far as the law is concerned, yes there will soon be tighter controls on spam from UK companies but 90% of my spam originates outside the UK and how well will the new laws be enforced anyway?

Spam is a pain but so is not getting the email you want.

software like spam assassin would get my vote.

[Carlito]

I know this wouldn't be expected of everyone with a mail account with NTL, but shouldn't the users be a lot more aware about where to use their email addys (Or to the point, When NOT to use them).

I use a hotmail account for things like signing up for forums and only give out my NTL addy to friends, family and the like and I've never had any spam in it (Other than the NTL Insider thingy!).

Again, this can't be expected for all, or even the majority of users but people don't knowingly give their home address to companies that are going to bombard them with a lot of bo***cks, should an email address be treated with less confidence??

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Maybe it would m8

However - I want to see how NTL customers feel about NTL filtering there mail. I tell you what - If people vote in favor of killing it at the server then I will buy you a drink, If people vote in favor of flaging the mail then you can buy me a drink and if people vote to leave it alone then we both have to buy a drink

( No rigging the poll for rep points now chaps )

Gets his coat and counts his beer money with a quite sniffle

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by Carlito

Again, this can't be expected for all, or even the majority of users but people don't knowingly give their home address to companies that are going to bombard them with a lot of bo***cks, should an email address be treated with less confidence??

I think the main problem is that a fair percentage of spam doesn't rely on knowing your real e-mail address at all, but uses other methods to send to a list of "possible" or "likely" permutations.

It is my guess it is this and other clear examples of abuse that earns the sender inclusion on any blacklist applied by NTL assuming they have indeed started to block some unwanted traffic as some believe.

[MikeyB]

I personnaly think blocking at the server is a very bad idea.

Every spam filter system I've seen & used never gets it right all the time.
SpamPal I use here, Yahoo & Hotmail have all flagged up emails I wanted as spam.
Hell, even our "mega-expensive" filter at work (no idea what it is!) gets it wrong from time to time.

With Yahoo & Hotmail it's not such a big problem as it just gets put into the junk folder.
But blocking it totally at the server is a very bad idea.

I had one incorrectly marked as spam this morning. It was an order confirmation from a website, imagine if that had been blocked and I never got it, I'd then have to chase the company up about my order etc.

If NTL are going to do anything with spam, it should just be flagged.
But there would need to be some controls that each user could control over the spam flagging, like white lists.

[Sociable]

I take your point MikeyB but this is not what we are suggesting here.

Suppose "Snail Mail" became free for all users sending out mail and as a result the commercial companies and others all started flooding the network with junk mail.

The inevitable result would be that all mail would get bogged down by the sheer weight of the junk causing delays and increasing costs to the point the whole system would break down.

Would your solution in this case be to want the postman to knock on your door and say, "ok we have split the mail in to two piles, one pile appears to be junk the other appears to be OK sorry it is two days late but we have too much mail to handle now".

Or would you rather someone at the local sorting office kept track of all the obvious junk and delivered it straight back to the person that sent it when that sender is know to be on a list of abusers of the system and is repeating previous misuse of the system.

This second option would reduce the impact of the junk mail freeing up the system to improve and maintain efficient delivery of the legitamate mail.

Yes the odd letter might get treated inappropriately but the sender would be made aware of this by its return to them. They can then make arrangements to have themselves eliminated from any list of automatically rejected mail by confirming it is legitamate.

OK maybe the example is a little far fetched but come to think of it if this could be applied to the Royal Mail too I could eventually get off the Readers Digest mailing list.

My Mum sent be an online birthday message (from Yahoo) on my birthday - my spam assassin (which is generally very good) classed it as spam.

I would have been very annoyed if NTL had took it upon themselves to delete this.