It does *NOT* work with anybody who actually knows the law.
They just laugh.
Because you _cannot_ prove that the person who sent the mail is the SAME
PERSON who saw the message with the 'contract' in it.
Whereupon the entire 'contract' claim disintegrates.
Party A harvests the address, and sells it to Party B.
Party B receives -only- the address, and never saw the 'contract'.
Hence there is no 'meeting of the minds', and no contract is formed.
If such an approach _were_ legally valid, I could put a 'contract' on
my postings which said 'by reading it, you agree to pay me $100 for
my time/effort in writing it."
Yup. "Someone" -- not necessarily the spammer. Can't prove that it was
the person who _sent_ the spam though. You know _where_ the address came
from, but not _who_ did the deed.
There are other techniques that are virtually 100% effective at stopping
the spam at the point of entry into the system.
I run a _mail-server_ that supports a specialized filtering front-end.
It applies a grand total of -eight- simple tests to incoming messages.
I have not had *one* piece of spam in my inbox in the two+ months since
I installed it. In that period, there have been more than 1500 messages
'sent' to me. I have had a grand total of 3 'false positive' rejections
of messages that it should have let in -- two because Netscape changed
the name of their mailservers, and one because of a programming error I
The checks I use:
1) Does the _originating_ mailserver claim that it is 'me' -- by name or
IP address. If so, reject the connection.
message: 'Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.'
This catches over 4% of all incoming spam.
2) Check for _two_ specific 'banned' domains (Asian 'freemail' providers
from which I have *never* gotten anything but 'Nigeria 419' scam
solicitation), in the sender identification.
These get 'treated rudely' -- told that if they want to send mail to
my systems there is a cost of $10/kilobyte, with a $25/message minimum.
minimum $500 dollar deposit required in advance.
They're _learning_. just over 1% of incoming spam triggers this.
3) Check for originating mailserver, sender, and/or 'From' address at
Hotmail, AOL, Netscape, or Yahoo. If any of those three items contain
one of those domains, *all* must be consistent. e.g., you can't mail me
from Earthink, claiming an AOL address, or from AOL claiming an Earthlink
The reject message specifies the restrictions, and adds "If you want to
send mail to this system, don't lie about who you are". (When Netscape
changed their mailservers, and mail from my _mother's_ Netscape account
got bounced, I had some explaining to to! :)
About 17% of incoming spam gets dropped by this filter.
4) Check the 'character set' specified, if any. If it's something I can't
read -- reject the message, with an announcement of what character sets
-are- supported here.
This has caught a grand total of *one* message, so far. Something in
some form of Chinese. This is less than 0.1% of incoming spam here.
5) I don't accept any 'HTML only' mail. Rejection says 'please resend
as PLAIN ASCII text'.
6) [The _fun_ one] There are 'stigmata' in mail headers that allow one
to _highly_reliably_ differentiate between a 'reply' (as generated
*inside* news-reader software) to a USENET posting, from a message
sent to that _same_ address from _other_ mail-sending software.
This catches about 8% of all the garbage.
7) A _simple_ check for anything that _might_ be a virus. If it 'looks like'
a MS 'executable', I don't care _what_ it actually is; I've got no use
for it on my UNIX system. <grin>
I don't have to identify it as a virus, let alone _what_ virus. ONE
check for an executable is all it takes.
This one minimal check eliminates better than 70% of all incoming garbage.
The rejection notice specifies that a MS-DOS 'executable' was detected,
(probably a virus-infected sending machine), and tells the sender, if
they have real reason to send such a file, to contact the recipient
via PLAIN TEXT, to find out how to send such files 'acceptably'.
This check occurs 'late' in processing, even though it catches the most
stuff, because it none of the earlier checks look at the _body_ of the
8) A similar check for PC 'zipfiles', since some viruses are using that
file format (_password_protected_, no less) to try to get past
'executable'-file virus-checkers. The scary part -- there *are* users
out there _dumb_enough_ to open one of those messages *and* type in
the password from the email when asked for it.
So far, -zero- hits on this filter, but it's 'ready and waiting'.
ALL of the 'rejections' and messages are part of the SMTP transaction.
No separate 'bounce' messages are ever generated.
It's simple, it's 100% automatic, it's _virtually_ maintenance-free,
and it is *so*effective* that email is boring.
Which is just the way I like it!
Even Better. Try graphite in a paint. this is a clear paint with the
graphite in it. It works great for all woodworking equipment,
lawnmower decks snowblower chutes, It was originally made for grain
handling equipment ( on the farm). I grew up on a farm & originally
used it on grain wagons ( hopper wagons) to help the grain slide out
when dumping them. The uses are limited to your imagination.
It is available in most farm supply stores under the brand name of
Look for a "dry lock lubricant". One product is named "lock-eze" or
something similar to that. As for the recipe, if you like mixing stuff
together like that, fine, but I get good results just using plain wax.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.