Talk:Email spam

message: "On July 20, 2008, Eddie Davidson walked away from a federal prison camp in Florence, Colorado. He was subsequently found dead in Arapahoe County, Colorado, after reportedly killing his wife and three-year-old daughter, in an apparent murder-suicide." Um, huh? What does that have to do with the article, other than the fact he was a prolific mass spammer which by the way, is fact that is not even made clear in the article to help a reader understand the context of this sentence, and even so, I fail to understand why it is there. This isn't List of spammers, so I think that bit should be removed, or be placed in the "See also" section. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 00:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of place sentence 

message: I've done this as the article clearly has issues, here's just a quick sample of prose which is unverified and possibly innappropriate in tone:
*Anti-spam techniques should not be employed on abuse email addresses, as is commonly the case. The result of this is that when people attempt to report spam to a host, the spam message is caught in the spam filter and the host remains unaware that their network is being exploited by spammers.
*As Bayesian filtering has become popular as a spam-filtering technique, spammers have started using methods to weaken it.
*So-called millions CDs are commonly advertised in spam. These are CD-ROMs purportedly containing lists of e-mail addresses, for use in sending spam to these addresses.
*Sometimes, if the sent spam is "bounced" or sent back to the sender by various programs that eliminate spam, or if the recipient clicks on an unsubscribe link, that may cause that email address to be marked as "valid", which is interpreted by the spammer as "send me more".
*Spammers frequently seek out and make use of vulnerable third-party systems such as open mail relays and open proxy servers. SMTP forwards mail from one server to another—mail servers that ISPs run commonly require some form of authentication to ensure that the user is a customer of that ISP. Open relays, however, do not properly check who is using the mail server and pass all mail to the destination address, making it harder to track down spammers.
*The whole of "Deception and fraud"
*Providers vary in their willingness or ability to enforce their AUP. Some actively enforce their terms and terminate spammers' accounts without warning.
Furthermore, the article fails to coherently focus the topic, it's quite ridiculous that right at the beginning of the article we are presented with superfluous information such as "Most common products advertised" without even discussing Spam's origins. The article History of email spam doesn't seem to expand on it's origins either. This glaring omission is reason enough for a quick fail alone. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 22:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Original research banner 

message: The article has been nominate for GA on 27 April, without the former review's issues being resolved. In particular, there are maintenance tags and fact-tags in the article. I am therefore going to an out-of-process quick fail (no need to fill up the article history with embarrassing successive GA failings). If it is renominated, I will do a formal quick-fail, unless the issues are fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, this has to stop.  keeps trying to nominate the article, even after it failed. The IP even tried to remove the old failed GA and replace it with another nomination. I warned the IP twice on User talk:199.125.109.76. It's at the point where it's just turning into vandalism. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the GA review, the article does not meet any of the quick fail requirements, nor has any fail criteria been specified. Therefore the article is currently GA and that needs to be noted, or someone else needs to review the article if the reviewer is unavailable. 199.125.109.76 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not GA as it has never passed a review. This is getting tiresome and I'm going to head you off at the pass by expanding upon my previous comments above (which were the reasons I quick-failed the GA nomination) and give you a full review of the articles problems. Call it a peer review or an informal GA but I can guarantee that no article I have passed would have more than the outstanding problems listed above. (review forthcoming) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When you do review it, provided there is no reason to actually quick-fail it, I would like to ask that you provide at least a few days for any problems you find to be fixed. 199.125.109.76 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you intentionally being tendentious? Stop attempting to nominate this article as GA. It's already failed twice, and you've done nothing to improve it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: "E-mail spam has steadily, even exponentially grown since the early 1990s to several billion messages a day. Spam has frustrated, confused, and annoyed e-mail users. The total volume of spam (over 100 billion emails per day as of April 2008[update]) has leveled off slightly in recent years, and is no longer growing exponentially. " source??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.128.123 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for statistics? 

message: The article does not mention Bot Bait; web pages designed to recursively generate an infinite number of random e-mail addresses. (Although the See also section does contain a link to Spider trap.) Would this not be a useful addition to the article? HairyWombat (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Bait not in article 

message: I have come across a number of examples of this recently: does it source from Russia?
Apart from 'developers of spam-blocking mechanisms' and 'collectors of creative-language spam' are there any positive results from spam-generation (for example new techniques of managing such messages and word recognition)? 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyrillic script spam and question

message: The information in this Wikipedia entry about Australia's spam laws being opt-in only, and how this contrasts with US spam laws opt-out requirements is completely fictitious. There is nothing about this mentioned in the Spam Act 2003. The Spam Act 2003 allows for people to send a commercial email to another person provided they have express or inferred consent (and follow the other rules). You may legally send a commercial email to someone who has conspicuously published their email address so long as the email is relevant to their published role. Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sa200366/sch2.html. E.g. you can, under the definition  of inferred consent in the Spam Act, email offers of plumbing supplies to a plumber who has published his email address on his website. So in this case, with inferred consent, you can email the person a commercial email even if they did not opt-in. So whoever wrote that Australia's laws require an opt-in requirement was wrong. Whether an email is classified as spam by the Spam Act 2003 comes down to three things: 1) whether there is consent (opt-in is one form of consent, but consent can also be inferred), 2) whether the sender provides accurate identification, 3) whether the sender provides a mechanism for the receiver to unsubscribe. The Australian laws don't contrast with the U.S. laws, in fact they are very similar to them. So this needs to be revised because the information that Australian spam laws are an opt-in requirement is false. 27.33.131.151 (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The information about Australian spam laws is plain wrong 

message: I was searching around the article and source 39 no longer exists and it needs to be replaced. Lothp (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do so! Meanwhile, I'll mark it with a "dead link" tag for reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as I went to do that, I saw that most of that section consisted of unreliable sources.  So, instead, I ended up stripping out most of the section and re-organizing.  Basically none of the given timeline data was reliable; if someone has reliable sources, we could re-add, but not from corporate websites or blogs.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright if I find any sources I'll add them to the page. Lothp (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 39 

message: The statement that some country did actually legalize spam must sound absurd for most of you. It seems absurd even for most people here in Bulgaria.
Unfortunately this section in the article is not fabricated. The Bulgarian e-comerce act does exist and believe me - it is extremely far from being the only, or the most absurd thing in this country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkavlakov (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could find not a single source for this.  I have removed all mentions of this until this can be properly sourced. Bigar (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian e-comerce act 

message: *"Global spam e-mail levels suddenly fall." BBC. 6 January 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I certainly don't want to clog up the External links section with irrelevant or worthless links, but Randy Cassingham's Spam Primer (SpamPrimer.com) seems particularly relevant, comprehensive and gives a really good run-down on the different kinds of spam and how to deal with them. Yes, no? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional external link?

message: The intro paragraph says "Email spam has steadily grown since the early 1990s".  This is no longer true as far as I can tell.  While we really don't know if it's because of botnet takedowns or other reasons, the level of spam on the Internet has decreased in the past couple of years.  See, for example:
1.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/technology-12126880
2.  http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/landing/spam/ (Symantec's Brightnet statistics;  you'll have to click on "History" to see multiple years.  This represents an estimate by Symantec of global spam and shows a pronounced decrease in the past 18 months.)
3.  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/30/spam_volumes_shrink/
It seems to me that this sentence should be changed, but I'm not sure how to change it and how to source it since no one seems to be talking about it much after the initial fall after the takedown of Rustock.  All I can find for sources are graphs that are difficult to link to.  Perhaps something like "Email spam grew steadily through the early 1990's and the first decade of the 21st century but recently volumes have fallen"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paultparker (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Email spam has steadily grown since the early 1990s"   but this isn't true anymore, is it? 

message: I am person who continuously have to explain people that spam is not good even when it is legal. Current wiki page indirectly supports view that if spam is legal, then it has nothing to do with ethics. I think this is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.213.52.170 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is written based upon what reliable sources say, not any of our opinions.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree with 122.213.52.170, even if the "legal spam" is allowed, it is still a problem, so it may be considered an ethical issue. --土地 空気 火災 水 14:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical considerations 

message: I received an email from a disgruntled/apparently unethical or just not self-aware person saying they had flagged my email address as spam (on what looks like Time Warner's Road Runner mail). It got me wondering how an address becomes spam. Could an angry ex flag all of your email as spam and have some effect? How would you know if your mail is being routed into spam folders, since you don't typically get mail back telling you as such? Are spam registries at all confederated? These all seem like interesting questions that I would love to read answers to--172.243.161.115 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No to the first question, assuming your angry ex is not still admin of your computer. This article, anti-spam techniques may answer some of your questions. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No my question is. Could it be possible to make an email address be seen as spam, simply by using the "flag as spam" option provided by many email system. For instance, if someone sent a thousand emails from address A to different email accounts, and had those accounts flag all of the emails as spam. Then suddenly A's emails would be sent to the spam folders on all of the systems that share spam information. Which seems to be how things work. In other words, when say on Gmail you mark mail as spam. It isn't simply saying that you are blacklisting it on your account. That mark propagates to others' accounts. And possibly to any service that shares Gmail's spam database. CASE IN POINT. I just pulled an email from my satellite television provider concerning my bill, that appears completely legit, and likely is. It was in spam. Could their competitor be sabotaging them? Could they be sabotaging themselves in order to increase late pay fees? Just for example. It seems like the current approach to spam filtering has some ethical pitfalls built in. Perhaps a government system should be used instead. If there is no better way to manage the onslaught of spam. At any rate, the current algorithms don't seem smart enough around false positives. That email was no different from many just like it that were sorted into the inbox. --172.243.161.115 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit off-topic for this page (where we're suppose to discuss improving the article, not the article's subject), but I run a few mailing lists which from time to time end up on some of the big ISPs 'spam' lists - mainly because subscribers who decide they no longer want to get list mail prefer to hit 'mark as spam' rather than 'unsubscribe'.. so what you are suggesting is technically possible. You may want to read Bayesian spam filtering. --Versageek 19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree as to being off topic -- but I'll allow myself a final observation: I have 5 email providers, they each use a different spam rejection system from the dozens available. No, it is not possible to make an email address be seen as spam to my knowledge. Your premise is not valid. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is spam filtered? Can a disgruntled person flag a legitimate address as spam as revenge? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Email spam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080628205216/http://www.latimes.com:80/technology/la-fi-spam11may11001420,1,5168218,full.story to http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-spam11may11001420,1,5168218,full.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060110053628/http://www.ftc.gov:80/reports/canspam05/051220canspamrpt.pdf to http://www.ftc.gov/reports/canspam05/051220canspamrpt.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Email spam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.cluelessmailers.org/articles/2008-01-19-gettingitwrong.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903202146/http://www.scmagazineus.com:80/six-years-later-can-spam-act-leaves-spam-problem-unresolved/article/163857/ to http://www.scmagazineus.com/six-years-later-can-spam-act-leaves-spam-problem-unresolved/article/163857
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724000732/http://www.maawg.org/about/MAAWG_2007-Q3-4_Metrics_Report.pdf to http://www.maawg.org/about/MAAWG_2007-Q3-4_Metrics_Report.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maawg.org/about/FINAL_1Q2006_Metrics_Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104065059/http://www.ciac.org:80/ciac/bulletins/i-005c.shtml to http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletins/i-005c.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106050512/http://www.caube.org.au:80/whatis.htm to http://www.caube.org.au/whatis.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128052940/http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/spamharvest.pdf to http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/spamharvest.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128052944/http://www.pegasusmail.tk/upload/SPAM_white_paper.pdf to http://www.pegasusmail.tk/upload/SPAM_white_paper.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: this is a list of emails anyone can spam, enjoy :D
somethingtodohere65@gmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AC92:AC00:B405:4492:2DCB:143D (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam emails. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Email spam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scmagazineus.com/six-years-later-can-spam-act-leaves-spam-problem-unresolved/article/163857
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318135541/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004283998_spamking15m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004283998_spamking15m.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletins/i-005c.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.caube.org.au/whatis.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Email spam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326145102/http://blog.viddler.com/brandice/pcpgh-invented-bacn/ to http://blog.viddler.com/brandice/pcpgh-invented-bacn/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section is entirely free of citations.
In general, this article suffers from citation problems: statements that appear to be cited, because they are in a para that ends with a citation, but which are not supported by the source.
In general, I think this is a pretty awful article. I have made a number of edits with the aim of improving it, but there is a lot of work to do. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deception and fraud 

message: CAN-SPAM does not legalize either UBE or UCE, although it does make redress more difficult; it explicitly
  leaves intact laws not specific to e-mail. Courts have ruled that spam is, e.g., Trespass to Chattel
. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAN-SPAM does not legalize UBE or UCE 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Spam bait. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Spam bait until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Not a very active user (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spam bait" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Ham (e-mail). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Ham (e-mail) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Not a very active user (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ham (e-mail)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Rolex (spam). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Rolex (spam) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Not a very active user (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rolex (spam)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :E-blast. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#E-blast until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Not a very active user (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "E-blast" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Email Blasting. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Email Blasting until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Email Blasting" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The information in this article needs to be updated some, and there is some information in the article that isn't important. Ravyn cavanaugh (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the case with most articles. The trick is ensure that your changes make it better :-)   -Snori (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  feedback 

message: Isn't the name of the product SPAM® rather than Spam? That's certainly what the Hormel web page at https://www.hormelfoods.com/brand/spam-brand/ says. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Hormel product upper case?