|
|
Posted by Shannon Jacobs on 01/14/07 07:34
Sorry for the non-topical addition to the discussion, but since you are a
current user of Cashette, it is possible that we share motivations as
regards email. Also, there's the warning part...
Regarding the motivations part, I hate spam, but I would like to have an
email address that could be used in public without being flooded with spam.
Since spam is fundamentally an economic problem, only economic solutions can
be truly effective, so I was optimistic Cashette might offer a real
solution.
I used Cashette for several years, but I am convinced it is now a one-man
operation on the verge of disappearing into bankruptcy, so I would both like
to warn you and to ask if you know of a good alternative. Or perhaps some of
the other readers know of a truly good email system for use in the
newsgroups?
My own Cashette account has been destroyed or locked, so you can't reply via
email (since I haven't yet decided on a new public-use email system). I will
watch this thread using Google Groups to see if there are any public replies
to this branch.
However, I think it may be helpful to review Cashette's sad story. The main
feature of Cashette was an economic model of email. I think prepaid email
would be even better, but Cashette was using a kind of
challenge-and-response approach with penalty payments for spammers. (By the
way, Cashette still owes me some money, but I regard that as a minor
grievance at this point. Probably a dollar, or maybe a buck and a half. I
certainly hope you [the Cashette user] aren't hoping to make any money off
of it...) Cashette has always been kind of flaky, and I've reported a number
of problems over the years, some of which were fixed. I've also offered a
number of suggestions, though I don't recall that any of them were adopted.
The main problem I perceived with Cashette was that the system still
collected and displayed spam, though in a special folder. If it's there, I
feel obliged to scan the folder for false positives, and that basically
negated the main spam-free virtue of Cashette. I offered several suggestions
for enhancements to improve the value of Cashette. Actually, I should be
more precise and note that it actually became unrealistic even to scan for
false positives. As noted in the following email, the volume of spam became
very large.
At first, I was thanked for the suggestions, though as noted, I don't
believe any were adopted. Finally, the response was not thankful and polite,
but extremely rude, as shown below. I thought about it for a while. I asked
for an apology, and didn't get it. I conclude that Cashette is down to one
BOFH and is on the verge of going away. Hence I prepared this post for other
Cashette users.
(However, there already seem to be very few users of Cashette, so perhaps my
experiences are too typical and this warning is too late? I laugh to recall
that I once attempted to defend the reputation of Cashette. You seem to be
only the second Cashette-based poster I could find...)
Let me repeat my main query: Can you recommend a good email system that can
be used in public places such as the newsgroups without being inundated with
spam?
Now for your entertainment and amusement, and certainly not to help the
reputation of Cashette, here is my recent correspondence with the BOFH of
Cashette. Sorry about the layout problems, but that's just another one of
the bugs in Cashette.
From: Cashette Support <support@cashette.com>
To: Shannon Jacobs <shanen@cashette.com>
Sent: Tue Nov 28 21:17:37 PST 2006
Subject: Re: Currently 2,390 blocked messages
> You're a bitch. Go fuck yourself and then go to hell. Have a nice day.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shannon Jacobs" <shanen@cashette.com>
> To: "Cashette Support" <support@cashette.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Currently 2,390 blocked messages
>
>
> > First, a new bug report. The "Check Spelling" buttons do nothing. Now to
> the main topic:
> >
> > Your reply to my previous suggestion was completely irrelevant and
> non-responsive.
> >
> > I write very clearly. I am actually a professional editor for a very
> > large
> international corporation. I mostly work on technical papers and corporate
> documents. I earn my living by helping other people write clearly. If you
> have any problem understanding what I am writing, please feel free to ask
> for clarification.
> >
> > I was not asking for a way to flush the spam crap more quickly. I was
> making a suggestion that would significantly increase the value of your
> email service. I am suggesting that you offer auto-flush options, or
> perhaps
> an option to make the "Blocked" folder invisible. (That's actually a new
> suggestion, but might be an elegant pseudo-solution (since you'd still be
> wasting disk space).) I am suggesting that those options would not only
> serve many of your users better, but they would also conserve your own
> resources. *YOU* are paying for the storage of unneeded garbage and for
> wasted bandwidth to dispose of the garbage.
> >
> My status on your system has actually 'improved' since I sent that
> suggestion. Currently there are only 1,356 spam messages in my "Blocked"
> folder. Those spam messages are just wasting your resources and annoying
> me
> by their very existence. They would actually waste even more of your
> resources if I downloaded the subjects just to delete them. *YOU* are
> paying
> for storage and for bandwidth that serves *NO* purpose at all.
> >
> > I am not going to waste my time (my most precious resource) looking at
> > any
> of them. I am not even going to scan the headers to check for false
> positives. I have even given up reporting stock scam spam to the SEC,
> since
> those reports clearly serve no purpose. I don't want or need to be
> reminded
> that the spammers still exist.
> >
> > I am not saying you have to force *ANY* of the users of your email
> > service
> to use the auto-flush feature I recommended. I am only suggesting that if
> you provide that option, I will certainly use it. However, I do believe
> that
> many of your users would select to use that option, and it would save you
> a
> large amount of resources and encourage many new people to use your
> service.
> >
> > Now I am offering a new suggestion. I am suggesting that if you want to
> reply to a comment, then you should reply in a way that is pertinent and
> responsive. Irrelevant and non-responsive replies are downright insulting
> and damage your reputation. Are you claiming that I'm too stupid to write
> clearly? Or are you claiming that you're too stupid to understand what I
> wrote?
> >
> > --- Cashette Support <support@cashette.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Shannon,
> > >
> > > Thank you for contacting Cashette Support. You can delete up to 200
> blocked
> > > messages at a time by just clicking in the top box on the page (in the
> > > header bar) and clicking delete.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Cashette Support
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Shannon Jacobs" <shanen@cashette.com>
> > > To: "Cashette Support" <support@cashette.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 4:25 PM
> > > Subject: Currently 2,390 blocked messages
> > >
> > >
> > > > For two weeks that's way over 100 per day. I don't want them. I'm
> > > > not
> > > going to scan them. Why are you wasting your resources on them?
> > > >
> > > > You should have an option to toss all blocked email immediately. I
> > > understand that you have to hold it temporarily to allow the blockee
> > > an
> > > option to register for Cashette, but there's no reason for me to see
> > > it
> > > while you're waiting. Or maybe you could include that as an another
> option?
> > > >
> > > > I think you're sort of close to having a good system here, but it's
> > > > still sort of recommendable.
--
The truth alone will not make you free. However, it is one of the
prerequisites. Unless you know the truths underlying your options, you
cannot choose in freedom, whether you're buying shaving cream or a war.
Busheviks are simply slaves to BushCo's lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|